Conclusions THIS CAUSE was considered by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, at its regular meeting held at 5:00 p.m. on December 14, 2004, and the Board, having received and reviewed the record and the recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge, Florence S. Rivas, and the exceptions filed by the Respondent and the response to those exceptions filed by the Superintendent, and having heard argument from counsel for the Respondent and the Superintendent, and being fully advised in the premises, THEREFORE, determines that the Respondent’s misconduct warrants the recommended penalty of termination. IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, that: 1. The Respondent’s exceptions to the recommended penalty are denied. 2. The recommended order dated October 7, 2004, to terminate the employment of the Respondent, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, be, and the same is hereby adopted as the Final Order of the School Board. 3. The Respondent, Lincoln M. Loucks, is hereby dismissed and terminated as an employee of the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, effective the end of the workday, December 14, 2004. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2004. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA Cha By:'{ ry bees ‘ (ote 2 Attest: fon wil “ N.Wilorf Ex Officio Secretary This Final Order was filed with me on this / ¢ day of December, 2004, and a conformed copy of the same was furnished to Thomas L. Wittmer, attorney for the Petitioner, on said date by hand-delivery, and to Mark Herdman, attorney for the Respondent, on said date by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. Forde Was Betz Deborah Beaty Clerk of the Board NOTICE All parties have the right of judicial review of this Final Order in accordance with section 120.68, Florida Statutes. In order to appeal, a party must file a notice of appeal with Deborah Beaty, the Clerk of the School Board, 301 4" Street S. W., Largo, FL 33770, within thirty (30) days of the rendition of this order (which occurred on the date such Final Order was filed with the clerk as set forth above), and must also file a copy of the notice, accompanied by filing fees, with the Clerk of the Second District Court of Appeal, 1005 East Memorial Blvd., Lakeland, FL 33801, tel. (863) 499-2290. Review proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules, and specifically, Rule 9.110 of such Florida Appellate Rules.
Findings Of Fact Thomas L. Berkner, Petitioner, holds a continuing contract status as principal of elementary school in Orange County. During the 1977-1978 school year Petitioner was assigned as principal of the Winter Garden Elementary School which had a student enrollment of approximately 250 and consisted of kindergarten, first and second grades only. The Orange County School Board consolidated Winter Garden and Dillard Street Elementary Schools for the school year 1978-1979 leaving one principal for the school which retained the separate facilities, but was called Dillard Street Elementary School. The job of principal of the consolidated schools was given to the Dillard Street School principal and Petitioner was transferred to the position of Program Coordinator, ESEA Title I at the same salary he was paid as principal. The ESEA Title I Program is a federally funded project to serve economically disadvantaged and educationally deprived or disadvantaged children in grades 1, 2, and 3 but math is extended to grades 4, 5, and 6. The pay grade for Program Coordinator Title I was pay grade 46 and when first assigned Petitioner's personnel records reflected this pay grade (Exhibit 3). However, the records were corrected to reflect his continuing contract status and his pay grade was increased to 48 (Exhibit 4) the same pay grade for elementary school principals for schools with enrollment below 800. Although program coordinators are on annual contract status, Petitioner does not, while serving in this capacity, lose the continuing contract status as an elementary school Principal which he acquired in 1970. Scholastic and experience requirements for various positions in the Orange County school system are revised when these positions are advertised for applicants and generally reflect the highest qualities available in the local job market. At the present time elementary school principals and program coordinators are required to hold a masters degree. In addition program coordinators must be certified in elementary education and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience at the elementary level. Elementary principals must be certified in elementary school administration and supervision, and have a minimum of five years teaching experience (Exhibits 5, 7, and 9). Both principals and program coordinators perform primarily administrative functions as opposed to teaching functions. The principal is given overall responsibility for the school to which he is assigned and has certain statutory duties and authority that are not visited upon other positions. These include administrative responsibility for evaluating the educational program at his school, recommending the transfer and assignment of personnel at his school, administrative responsibility for school records, authority to administer corporal punishment and suspension of students, and perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Superintendent. Those duties assigned by the Superintendent are contained in the Job Description, Elementary School Principal (Exhibit 7) and phrased in the lexicon of education administrators, call upon the principal to promote, develop, coordinate, formulate, involve, manage and initiate programs and relationships to optimize the effectiveness of the school. The job description of the Program Coordinator ESEA, Title I (Exhibits 5 and 9) assigns to him responsibility for supervision of the Title I Program. The program coordinator's typical duties include interpreting the philosophy and goals of the program, assisting teachers, planning activities, participating in program planning, assisting principals and staffs, preparing and submitting reports and records, and performing other duties that may be assigned. Both jobs involve dealing with teachers and students, supervision, and administrative functions in carrying out the program for which each is responsible. The principal carries out his duties in the school to which he is assigned and works from his office while the program coordinator is responsible for the Title I program in several schools and spends a large part of his time away from the "office" he shares with other program coordinators. The principal has a secretary while the program coordinator must share a secretary with other program coordinators. However, one witness described the secretary at one elementary school as a school secretary and that the secretary did not work solely for the principal. Of those 15 typical duties of an elementary school principal listed on Exhibit 7, the program coordinator performs all but 5 and they involve duties that may be described as school-oriented rather than program-oriented. Of those 7 typical duties listed on Exhibit 9, Job Description for ESEA Title I Program Coordinator, the elementary school principal performs all except serve on Title I advisory council. Several witnesses testified that the position of principal was more prestigious than that of program coordinator, however, when all the evidence is considered it appears that prestige, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. While testifying in his own behalf Petitioner averred that as a program administrator he had no administrative duties and no personnel duties. Other program coordinators testified that they did have administrative and personnel duties. Petitioner acknowledged that most of the typical duties listed on Exhibit 7 were also performed by program coordinators.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether respondent should be dismissed from her position as a teacher for the reasons given in the amended notice of proposed dismissal dated January 20, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Gwendolyn M. Beeks, was a classroom teacher employed by petitioner, Duval County School Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed at Pine Estates Elementary School in Jacksonville, Florida. Between July 9, 1994, and August 22, 1994, respondent had access to the bank account of the Pine Estates Elementary School Safety Patrol. Based on a complaint by parents of patrol members, an investigation of the bank account was conducted by the state attorney. On November 14, 1994, the state attorney filed an information against respondent charging her with violating Section 812.014(c), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony. Specifically, respondent was charged with the theft of approximately $1,600.00 from the Safety Patrol bank account. On December 15, 1994, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The circuit court withheld adjudication, placed her on eighteen months probation, required restitution, payment of costs and a letter of apology, and ordered that she perform fifty hours of public service. On January 20, 1995, the Board issued its amended notice of proposed dismissal. Respondent has been suspended without pay since that time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board enter a final order discharging respondent as a classroom teacher for violating Sections 4(a) and (d) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, as amended. The charge that she has violated Section 4(b) should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Larry L. Zenke Superintendent of Schools Duval County Public Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Thomas E. Crowder, Esquire 600 City Hall 1300 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Gwendolyn M. Beeks 9801 Baymeadows Road, Number 156 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, misconduct in office and absent without leave as more fully alleged in letter dated November 7, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Joseph A. Tourney held an Educator's Certificate from the Florida Department of Education (Ex. 1) and has been on continuing contract since 1972 with the Pinellas County School Board (Ex. 2). He has taught in the Florida School System for approximately 20 years with the last 14 years at Pinellas Park High School (PPHS) as a social studies teacher. As early as 1970, while a teacher at Lakewood Senior High School, Respondent's negative attitude toward strict compliance with school policies was noted (Ex. 9). Much of this attitude was exhibited by arriving later than and departing prior to the time designated for teachers to be at the school (Ex. 10). Following a review of Respondent's evaluations and conferences with him regarding his attitude respecting school policies and procedures to which Toumey did not agree, a recommendation was made by the Principal at Lakewood that Toumey be transferred (Ex. 12). Toumey was transferred to Largo High School. No problems were reported regarding Toumey during his tenure at Largo. When Pinellas Park High School opened circa 1976 Toumey was transferred to that school. Hugh Kreiger was principal at Pinellas Park High School. Krieger was a hands-on administrator who closely observed those under his supervision. The first time he observed Toumey depart school early he called him in and assigned Toumey permanent parking lot duty which required Toumey's presence at the parking lot until after the designated departure time. For the next five years no further problem was noted regarding Toumey's punctuality at school. Krieger was replaced by Louis Williams and Toumey's attendance problems resumed. After repeated warnings about leaving school in the afternoon prior to the scheduled departure time for teachers (30 minutes after students are released) and a conference between Williams and Tourney, Williams requested a conference with Tourney and John Mixon, Director of Personnel Services for the school board. This conference was held October 14, 1982 (Ex. 13). During this conference Respondents's early departures from school, his attitude toward school policies to which he disagreed, and his insensitivity to students was discussed and Tourney was advised that improvements in these matters was expected. By memo dated February 28, 1983 (Ex. 15) Williams noted several occasions where Toumey had departed school early and Tourney was charged with one-half day's leave and given a written reprimand. A subsequent documentation of Tourney leaving school early is contained in a memo dated November 7, 1986, from Williams to Tourney (Ex. 16). On September 21, 1987, Nancy Blackwelder, Assistant Principal at PPHS, submitted a memorandum to Tourney memorializing a conference with him in which he was again reminded of his need to improve in classroom atmosphere conducive to learning, judgment, and routine duties; and noting that if he failed to perform routine duties he would receive a written reprimand (Ex. 17). On October 8, 1987, a conference was held between Tourney; Nancy Zambito, who replaced Dr. Mixon as Director of Personnel Services; the principal of PPHS, M. Heminger; and a union representative. The summary of this conference is contained in a memo from Zambito to Tourney dated October 3, 1987, (Ex. 18). In this conference Tourney's inappropriate behavior in class involving his participation in a program adopted by the school, Patriot Educational Partners (PEP), was discussed, Tourney was again reminded of the need to support school board policies and programs in his contact with students, and Tourney agreed to improve. In November 1987 Tourney and the School Board entered into a Stipulation and Agreement (Ex. 19). In this Agreement Tourney acknowledged that he had been given less than satisfactory evaluations for the school years 1970-71, 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1986-87, that he had received numerous counseling sessions to discuss his failure to adhere to established school procedures and his negative comments to students. He also acknowledged that during the 1987-88 school year while assigned as advisor to a group of students with whom he is supposed to meet for five minutes each morning, he has frequently been late; that he referred to this program in the presence of students in negative and profane terms; and on one occasion he threw financial aid papers in the trash can and told students they could get them from there if they wanted them. For these infractions Tourney agreed to a suspension without pay for five days. He also acknowledged that further infractions may lead to a recommendation for his dismissal. In his testimony at this hearing Tourney averred that most of the students who were given financial aid applications threw them on the floor from which they had to be picked up and placed in the trash baskets, and that he was merely shorting the process by throwing these applications in the trash can rather than pass them out to the students who would throw them on the floor. On May 9, 1989, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand (Ex. 20), by Principal Heminger for inappropriate conduct in his class during a visit to the class by members of the committee conducting a ten-year evaluation of the PPHS for accreditation during the period of April 25-28, 1989. In this reprimand he was also found to have arrived late at the final meeting of the Visiting Committee and to have returned from lunch with the odor of alcohol on his breath. On September 12, 1989, a conference was held between John Reynolds, Assistant Principal at PPHS and Tourney to discuss Tourney's 1988-89 evaluation. This conference is memorialized in memorandum dated September 19, 1989, (Ex. 21). The areas in which improvement is expected in the evaluations are attitude, judgment and routine duties. October 13, 1989, was an in-service day for teachers. This is a normal school day which only teachers attend. It was one of several similar days during the school year that teachers hold meetings, catch up on the grading of papers and perform tasks other than conducting classes for their students. It is a day all teachers are expected to be present at school. At PPHS in-service days have always been more informal than regular school days and in the past teachers have departed early once their tasks were completed. Prior to 1988 there had been no sign-in sheet for teachers at PPHS but such a procedure was instituted and in effect for the in-service day of October 13, 1989. Respondent appeared at school on October 13, 1989, as required but slightly late. Around 9:00 a.m. he received a telephone call from his good friend and fellow teacher in the social studies department, David Smith, who told respondent that he, Smith, had just awakened after not having slept well during the night, and Smith requested Respondent to sign him in and he would arrive shortly. Respondent did so. After making the call, Smith went back to bed and when he again awoke it was afternoon and he realized he was suffering from flu-like symptoms and was too sick to go to school. Several people were aware that Smith did not report to school on October 13, 1989 and reported same to the authorities. When confronted with the accusation both Tourney and Smith denied that Tourney had signed Smith in and that Smith was not at school that day. When he finally acknowledged his absence from school on October 13, 1989, Smith was suspended for three days without pay. The October 13, 1989, incident was the culmination of a long history of Respondent's failure to comply with school policies and directives, to "trash" school programs to which he did not agree, and to be in the forefront of rebellion against such programs and policies which led to the proposed action of the school board to dismiss Respondent from his continuing contract as a teacher in the Pinellas County school system at the expiration of the 1989-90 school year.
Recommendation It is recommended that Joseph Tourney be dismissed from his position as a continuing contract teacher in the Pinellas County School System at the conclusion of the 1989-90 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Dr. Scott N. Rose, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, FL 33675-0638
Conclusions The Sheriff's Civil Service Board, in accordance with the authority in the Special Act, Laws of Florida 89-904, as amended, elected by contract with the Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) to have the hearing on Petitioner’s timely filed appeal conducted by a DOAH Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Subsequent to that election but prior to the appeal hearing, Respondent requested this Board to withdraw that election and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on changed circumstances. A meeting was held January 27, 2012. Petitioner did not appear. Upon argument presented at the January 27, 2012 meeting, and being otherwise advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. The Board, by a unanimous vote of five (5) members, finds that it has been divested of jurisdiction to hear, or have DOAH conduct a hearing, on the Appeal of Shawn Fox and remands the appeal back to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. Page 1 of 2 2. The Board directs the parties to notify the DOAH ALJ of this Order within five (5) calendar days. DONE AND ORDERED this 27" day of January, 2012. nc 4 AZAR Neal A. White, Chair Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above Final Order has been furnished by U.S. Regular Mail to Mr. Shawn Fox, [ir HE 2nd Sherwood Coleman, Esquire, Pinellas County Sheriff's General Counsel’s Office, 10750 Ulmerton Road, Largo, FL 33778, this 30 day of Gasuiy. 2012. Cc : é ‘arole Sanzeri Senior Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street, 6" Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 727-464-3354/Fax: 727-464-4147 Attomey for Sheriff's Civil Service Board Copies to: Members of the Sheriff’s Civil Service Board William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge Vicki M. Troesch, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office HAUSERS\ATYKB03\WPDOCSICSISHERIFF CIVIL SERVICE BOARD\Appeals\Fox, Shawn 11_0111\FINAL ORDER 01-27-12.doc Page 2 of 2
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, should be reprimanded and reassigned from her position as Countryside High School principal to a position as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office, at the same rate of pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, has been involved in the field of education for over 20 years. She moved to Volusia County in 1985 to begin her career in Florida. She began as assistant director of personnel but went through target selection and became an elementary school assistant principal, an elementary school principal, and then the principal of Volusia County's largest high school. She married and moved to Pinellas County in 1993 and was hired as an assistant principal at Gibbs High School for the 1993-94 school year. She was promoted to principal of Countryside High School for the 1994-95 school year. During her tenure in Pinellas County, Lambeth was a very effective principal and generally very well-liked (although, like almost all principals, she had her detractors as well as her supporters.) Lambeth's performance evaluations during her tenure in Pinellas County through May 8, 1998, have been excellent. Lambeth's employment as principal of Countryside High School has been under successive annual contracts with the Pinellas County Schools. The contract for the 1997/98 school year provided, in pertinent part: . . . The Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, transfer and assign the Employee to a similar position in any other location of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned, and the salary shall be heretofore set forth. * * * 5. The Board may suspend or remove the Employee for just cause. The Employee shall not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Employee be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. * * * 11. Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions, hereof, or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice. On April 28, 1998, Lambeth again was appointed to a position for the 1998/99 school year, "subject to assignment and transfer." Lambeth accepted the appointment on May 8, 1998. There exist Pinellas Administrators Association Personnel Practices and Grievance Procedures. These documents were developed jointly by the Superintendent of Schools and the Executive Board of the Pinellas Administrators Association; they were approved by the School Board on July 14, 1976. The Personnel Practices provide in pertinent part: COMPLAINTS A. Complaints, oral or written, involving administrators or supervisors shall be investigated through line offices. A copy of such a complaint shall be immediately forwarded to the employee concerned so that he may respond. The employee shall be entitled to know the name of the person or group making the complaint. * * * TERMINATION Termination for Cause. Administrative and supervisory personnel may be terminated for cause on the same grounds as delineated in F.S. 231.36(6) at the discretion of the School Board. Termination shall include discharge, suspension without pay, demotion in salary or status, or any other action involving fault on the part of such administrator or supervisor. * * * C. Any administrator or supervisor terminated for cause subjected to a personnel action as defined above shall have the right to register his complaint through the Pinellas administrators' grievance procedures. However, the significance of these documents is not clear; nor is it clear that they are still are applicable at this time. They apparently are not duly promulgated School Board policy, and the School Board does not refer to them in the conduct of its employment relationships. They also are not part of Lambeth's employment contract. Even if generally applicable, it also was not clear whether they would apply to administrators who are not members of the Pinellas Administrators Association, and there was no evidence that Lambeth is a member. In August 1997, someone approached Countryside assistant principal, Kathleen Novak, to explain the circumstances of a 1997 graduate. The student was a few points short of the minimum grade required in certain core high school courses by either his college's admission requirements, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) athletic scholarship requirements, or both. Novak went to her principal, Lambeth, to discuss the matter. Another assistant principal, Paula Flott, also participated in the discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that Lambeth asked Novak and Flott to try to contact "their" teachers (i.e., the teachers "assigned" to them for purposes of supervision and division of duties) to find out if there were any grades that could be raised enough through re-testing to meet the minimum requirements the student needed to meet. Before contacting the teachers, Novak first had occasion to confer with yet another assistant principal, Henry Moore. Moore helped Novak review the student's report cards and identified two grades he thought could be raised enough to give the student the minimum grade required. One was a "mid-point" grade in a history class the student took during his junior year (1995-96). Under School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.24(2)(g): "At the mid-point of each grade level, i.e., 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, .5, it will be the option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Moore also identified a psychology grade from the student's senior year (1996-97) which was borderline. It is not clear from the evidence whether Moore thought it was necessary to contact the history teacher, David Ferguson, about the mid-point grade. Moore understood Countyside's unwritten policy to be that, if a student improved his or her grade during the grading period, a mid-point grade would be increased to the next higher whole number or letter grade unless the teacher went to the principal to justify deviating from the policy. There was some evidence to suggest that Moore thought Lambeth, as principal, could raise the mid-point grade without re-testing; but the evidence was not clear that Moore communicated this to Novak or Lambeth at the time. In any event, Moore testified to his assumption that Novak would next contact the teachers concerning re-evaluation of the two grades. The next day, Novak reported to Lambeth the results of her conversation with Moore. Lambeth decided that the student should re-take the final examinations in both classes. She testified that she instructed Novak to contact the teachers about the re-evaluations and re-testing. Novak denied receiving explicit instructions to contact the teachers at this point. It is found that Novak would not have disregarded a direct instruction to contact the teachers. It is more probable that Lambeth simply instructed Novak to proceed to take care of it and assumed that Novak would contact the teachers. Novak also saw Flott that day. Flott told Novak that Flott had not contacted any of "her" teachers yet. Novak told Flott not to worry about it, that Novak had "taken care of it." Flott assumed Novak meant Novak had contacted the teachers. Actually, Novak meant that, since the two grades Novak and Moore already had been identified were enough, there was no need for Flott to contact any of "her" teachers. At this time during the summer, the teachers were on vacation, and Novak researched files of past exams maintained by the school administration to document grades and reproduced the final exams for the grades she and Moore had identified. Novak then made arrangements for the student to retake the exams and notified Lambeth that the student had improved his grades enough to meet the student's college requirements. When Novak reported to Lambeth, the deadline for the student's college requirements was imminent. Lambeth assumed but did not ask whether Novak had contacted the teachers whose grades were involved. Lambeth did not ask to see any documentation of the teachers' assent to a grade change or any documentation of the retesting. Lambeth just told Novak to change the grades in the official records and notify the college and/or the NCAA. Novak responded that she did not know how to do this. Lambeth told her to get assistance from clerical personnel who knew how to change grades; Lambeth herself took care of notifying the college and/or the NCAA. To notify the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth modified a form used by Countryside's athletic department to document that a student-athlete's grade had been properly re-evaluated so as to regain eligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics. The form utilized had a place for the signature of the teacher whose grade was being re-evaluated. In modifying the form for purposes of notifying the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth deleted the provision for the teacher's signature. Lambeth signed the form as principal on August 15, 1997, and sent the notification to the college and/or the NCAA. Lambeth denied that she deleted the teacher signature provision in the form because she knew the teachers were unaware of the grade re-evaluations. Although the teachers were at school on August 15, 1997, preparing for the start of the 1997-98 school year, Lambeth said she dispensed with the teacher signature provision in order to expedite the notification. A few days after the start of the 1997-98 school year, the girl friend of the student whose grades were changed told Ferguson that the student had retaken Ferguson's final exam. Ferguson was busy and told the girl that they would discuss it later, which they did about a month later. For another month or more, Ferguson did nothing about it. Towards the end of October or early November 1997, Ferguson approached Lambeth to let her know what had happened and that students were talking about it. To his surprise, Lambeth told him she knew all about it, having been directly involved herself in the grade re-evaluation. Lambeth did not act as if she saw anything wrong with what was done; she even seemed proud of her participation. Ferguson, who did not think it was right for one of his assigned grades to be re-evaluated without his knowledge, was taken off-guard by Lambeth's response and decided not to say anything else about it at the time. In about December 1997, Ferguson found the time to spend several hours looking into the circumstances of the grade re-evaluations. He discovered that the grades were changed in the student's official transcript, but that the changes were not otherwise documented. The lack of documentation also seemed wrong to Ferguson. During the spring semester of the 1997-98 school year, Ferguson approached Jim Watters, the psychology teacher whose assigned grade was changed. By this time, Watters was at a different school, and Ferguson thought it would be logical for Watters to be the one to complain about the grade changes since Ferguson not only still was at Countryside but also had to deal with Lambeth in his capacity as Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA) union representative. Watters told Ferguson that he did not want to complain because he was near retirement and did not want controversy at that point in his career. Subsequently, Ferguson sought the advice of the PCTA as to whether he would be opening himself to discipline if he did not report the incident to the school district administration. It was concluded that the incident should be reported. On April 23, 1998, Rik McNeill of the PCTA contacted Dr. Martha O'Howell, an administrator in the school district's Office of Professional Standards, to report the grade change incident; the next day, Jade Moore of the PCTA sent O'Howell a letter reporting the incident. On or about April 30, 1998, O'Howell's office began an investigation of the reported incident. On May 11, 1998, O'Howell interviewed Lambeth, Novak, and others at Countryside and took written statements from them. When O'Howell told Lambeth that teachers had complained, Lambeth wondered aloud why, since they had participated. Novak's statement, on the other hand, was that the teachers were not notified or involved because they were not at school at the time. On May 14, 1998, O'Howell re-interviewed Lambeth and Novak. In her re-interview of Lambeth, the principal maintained her understanding that Novak had discussed re-testing with the teachers whose grades were involved. During her re-interview of Novak, O'Howell asked Novak for the second time to produce the re-tests she administered, but Novak reiterated that she could not find the re-tests or any documentation that re-testing had in fact taken place. She got the impression that O'Howell questioned the truth of her assertion that re-tests actually had been administered and became defensive. Novak got the impression that it was very important for her to be able to produce the re- tests. On May 21, 1998, Novak submitted a supplement to her earlier written statement. In the supplement, Novak expressed confusion about Ferguson's complaint in light of her recollection that Ferguson had told her "emphatically last year that it wasn't his responsibility to give early exams or make up exams if they might extend beyond contract hours" and said: "That's administration's problem, not mine." Afraid of what might happen to her if she could not produce the re-tests (that it could end her career and jeopardize her retirement benefits), Novak panicked. She tried to again re- produce the examination questions, and she forged answers. She presented the forgeries to O'Howell on June 2, 1998. O'Howell quickly saw through Novak's inept forgeries for what they were, and Novak was in even more trouble than she thought she was in before the forgeries. On or about June 9, 1998, Lambeth asked for a meeting with the investigator and Area Supervisor Bill Williamson. Their assessment of the situation was that it was "serious"; they suggested that Lambeth consider what parents would think. But Lambeth also knew about Novak's forgeries and assumed that Novak had become the focus of the investigation, not her. Indeed, at a meeting on June 18, 1998, O'Howell informed Novak that her job was in jeopardy; O'Howell said she was prepared to recommend that the Superintendent terminate her employment. At that point, Novak retained an attorney, who asked to meet with the School Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, and the School Board's attorney, Wesley Bridges. The meeting took place on June 24, 1998. At the meeting on June 24, 1998, Novak and her attorney tried to explain to Hinesley and Bridges why Novak forged the re- tests. They also told Hinesley and Bridges that Novak thought Lambeth was trying to blame Novak for the incident but that Lambeth never told Novak to contact the teachers whose grades were involved. Hinesley took this and other information given by Novak at the meeting into consideration in evaluating the situation. Based on the discussion at this meeting, Hinesley decided to reprimand and demote Novak to an instructional position with no reduction in pay, instead of terminating her employment. On or about June 29, 1998, Area Supervisor Williamson told Lambeth that it was time to have a meeting to resolve the matter. Williamson again emphasized that it was "serious," this time communicating to Lambeth that she was also in jeopardy. The meeting was set for July 2, 1998. At this point, Lambeth hired an attorney. The meeting was attended by Lambeth, Hinesley, their attorneys, Williamson, and O'Howell. Lambeth was informed that she was being removed as principal at Countryside for her role in the grade change incident and would be transferred to another position. She was told that a letter to that effect had been mailed to her. She was required to hand over her office keys and was told to make arrangement to clean-out her office at 5 p.m. She was told that she would not be allowed to return to campus without campus police being present. Campus police escorted her to her car. On or about July 8, 1998, Lambeth received Hinesley's letter dated July 2, 1998. Besides reciting facts found through the investigation, the letter accused Lambeth of failing "to ensure that the teachers of the two courses involved had knowledge of or approved the final examination re-takes and the subsequent grade changes" and "to ensure that the re-takes were properly administered and graded and that the results were documented." The letter reprimanded Lambeth for "violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23, as well as the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida." (School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23 sets the district's High School Credit and Student Performance Standards; section (6) of the rule provides that a student's mastery of performance standards "shall be determined by the teacher with the principal's approval.") The letter also stated that Lambeth's conduct "reflects a lack of sound professional judgment and seriously diminishes your effectiveness as a school leader." As a result, the letter stated, Lambeth was being removed her from her position as Countryside High School principal, was being placed on administrative leave, and would be reassigned to another position. By letter dated July 8, 1998, Hinesley notified Lambeth that she was being reassigned as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office. Lambeth's contract was not changed, and her pay was not reduced. Her new position is classified as Level 4 in the School Board's personnel system, while high school principal is a Level 8 position. There are some similarities between the two positions, but there also are differences. Both positions require a master's degree, certification in administration and supervision, and five years of related professional experience; a program supervisor for Title I also requires an additional minimum of three years of teaching experience. Both positions involve working with teachers; but while a principal supervises 95 teachers (plus non-teacher personnel and 1500 to 2000 students) at a school site, a Title I program supervisor works with but does not supervise principals, assistant principals, and teachers at 18 different elementary schools. Both jobs involve budget planning, but the nature of the budgets are different; a Title I program supervisor reviews budgets for federal funds. There is no provision for re-evaluating a student's grades after graduation. There is a policy to allow a student who has passed all 24 courses required to graduate, but did not earn the minimum grade point average (GPA) required to receive a diploma, to "walk" at graduation , receive a "certificate of completion," and return to school in the summer and/or an additional year of high school to re-take classes to hopefully raise his or her GPA enough to receive a high school diploma. But there is no evidence that the student involved in this case did not receive a diploma when he graduated at the end of the 1996-97 school year. He was no longer a student and should not have been able to change his grades at that point. In circumstances when it would be permissible to re- evaluate a student's grades, it should only be done in consultation with the teacher who assigned the grade. Subject to the requirement that grading policies are followed, student grading is the province of the teacher's exercise of professional judgment, subject only to the principal's approval. The integrity of the grading system depends the teacher's exercise of professional judgment. Likewise, the "education contract" among the administration, teachers, students, and parents presumes and requires integrity in the grading process. School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.28(4)(g) is clear that, in the case of "mid-point" grades, it is the "option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Clearly, this policy gives the principal the ability to review the teacher's grade and argue forcefully that a different grade should be assigned. Some teachers would succumb to the principal's choice, either because of the force of the principal's arguments or because of fear of the possible consequences of disagreeing with their principal. The policy may even enable a principal to overrule the teacher. But it is a violation of policy for a principal to change a grade without following the mid-point grade policy. Because of the importance of integrity in the grading system, it is incumbent on the principal to take reasonable steps to ensure that teachers are involved in any grade re-evaluation. Clearly, a principal must delegate responsibilities to assistant principals when necessary and appropriate, and a principal should be entitled to rely on an assistant principal to follow the principal's instructions (whether expressed ad hoc or in policy). For that reason, Lambeth normally would have been entitled to expect an assistant principal to involve the teacher in any grade re-evaluation. But re-evaluation of a student who had graduated was not normal, and Lambeth should have made it clear to Novak that Novak was not to proceed with re-testing and grade re- evaluation without the teachers' participation. It is not clear from the evidence that Lambeth made reasonable efforts make this clear to Novak. By the same token, because the situation was not normal, Lambeth should have made some effort to ensure that Novak properly documented the re-take of the examinations and the grade change instead of relying entirely on Novak. There is no question but that Lambeth's effectiveness as a school leader diminished as a result of this grade change incident. As Lambeth pointed out at final hearing, most principals have their supporters and detractors, and predictably there were some teachers and parents who testified that the grade change incident did not reduce Lambeth's effectiveness as far as they were concerned. But most of these witnesses did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives. Meanwhile, there were many witnesses who testified that Lambeth's effectiveness was seriously diminished in their view, and they were not all detractors of Lambeth; they included Hinesley, other Pinellas County school administrators, retired Pinellas County School Superintendent Scott Rose, administrators from other school districts, teachers at other schools, and parents. Some of these also did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives; but some knew all or most of the facts and circumstances and spoke from broader perspectives. Some witnesses expressed the idea that the reduction in effectiveness would not be insurmountable or permanent if Lambeth would admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again. Unfortunately, Lambeth did not admit error until her testimony at the end of her case-in-chief. While she complained that she was not given the opportunity to do so before the meeting on July 2, 1998, she missed innumerable opportunities since; indeed, much of her case seemed aimed at proving that she had done nothing wrong. The authenticity of her eleventh-hour repentance is suspect. At the same time, while Lambeth's effectiveness certainly was diminished by the incident (and her refusal to admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again), it is not clear just how seriously her effectiveness has been diminished. There were mitigating factors. First, Lambeth has an excellent record as an effective administrator. Second, while her efforts were misguided, her motive was to help a student gain educational benefits. The student was African- American and, while the Petitioner criticized Lambeth for testifying in deposition that the student's minority status was a factor in her efforts to help, the School Board in fact has a policy of emphasizing the delivery of educational benefits to minority students. Also, after what she has been through, it seems unlikely that Lambeth would be foolish enough to repeat this or any similar grade change blunder in the future. A reprimand and reassignment to Title I program supervisor certainly is a setback for Lambeth's career as a school principal. But, contrary to Lambeth's concern and contention in this case, it is found that such an action does not necessarily mean the end of Lambeth's career as a school principal in this or any other school district. Certainly, if Lambeth's offense is as minor as she contends it was, she may well be able to convince a school superintendent other than Hinesley to assign her as a school principal. It certainly seemed that retired School Superintendent Rose would have been open to the idea; there is no reason to be certain that others may not also consider Lambeth for a principal position. If Hinesley's position as Pinellas School Superintendent is as tenuous as Lambeth's evidence attempted to suggest (i.e., that he may be just one School Board vote from being the former Pinellas School Superintendent), the chances are that it may not be long before Lambeth could apply to a subsequent Pinellas School Superintendent for such a position. It even seems possible (although perhaps not likely) that Hinesley himself might reconsider and reassign Lambeth as a principal at some point in the future. Lambeth also contended that other School Board employees have been treated more leniently for worse offenses. But the evidence did not prove selective enforcement against Lambeth. The other situations either were too dissimilar to compare, or Lambeth's treatment was not clearly excessively harsh by comparison. Lambeth first points to the treatment of Novak. While it is true that Novak forged the re-tests, she was Lambeth's subordinate and subject to Lambeth's direction, and her treatment (reassignment to a completely nonsupervisory position) was somewhat harsher than Lambeth's. Lambeth also points to Ferguson, who Lambeth contends went unpunished after alleged violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-6.22 by posting a copy of a portion of the School Board's investigative report on Lambeth and Novak on the bulletin board in the teacher's lounge. But Policy 6Gx52-6.22 provides: Employees shall not use the classroom, nor any other part of school facilities, as a platform for making disparaging remarks against students, parents, teachers and/or administrators. Conduct contrary to this policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, it is not clear that posting information about an investigation that was of genuine concern to the teachers is the same thing as using the bulletin board "as a platform for making disparaging remarks." Nonetheless, Lambeth's replacement as Countryside's principal considered the posting to be bad for morale and asked Ferguson to remove it. Initially, Ferguson refused to remove it; eventually, he removed it at the request of and as a favor to Jade Moore of the PCTA. (The evidence was that Hinesley was not aware of the posting.) Lambeth's other evidence on this point consisted of letters of reprimand to a principal and an assistant principal for not following proper procedures and immediately notifying the proper authorities of allegations of sexual abuse. It is not clear that these offenses are so similar to Lambeth's as to have required the School Board in fairness to also remove and reassign them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for a Name Clearing, Due Process and Florida Statute 120.57 Hearing and approving the reassignment of the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, to Title I program supervisor under the same contract and at the same pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Orange Park Center 696 First Avenue, North, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
The Issue Whether cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed termination of the Respondent's employment as a bus driver for alleged inappropriate conduct with a student.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Howard Jessie (Respondent) was employed as a bus driver by the Pinellas County School Board. On an unidentified day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the Respondent was observed fraternizing on campus with several Pinellas Park High School students. The Respondent was tossing a football with students in an area which was "off-limits" to students. A female student identified herein as T.C. was present. A school resource officer approached the Respondent, and informed him that the area was off-limits to the students and that it was not appropriate for him to socialize with students at that time. The Respondent informed the officer that he was a bus driver and his association with students was not inappropriate. On a later unidentified day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the school's assistant principal observed the Respondent walking with T.C. in the "mall" area of the high school campus. The assistant principal instructed the Respondent to cease fraternizing with students. On a third day during the first semester of the 1993-1994 school year, the assistant principal observed the Respondent standing near the school bus area and speaking with several students including T.C. The assistant principal contacted a supervisor at the school board's transportation department and informed him of the Respondent's behavior. Upon receiving the phone call from the assistant principal, the supervisor summoned the Respondent to his office and directed the Respondent to cease his association with the students. The Respondent agreed to refrain from having further contact with the students. On or about January 10, 1994, the school resource officer observed the Respondent and T.C. standing on campus next to a parked school bus, and watched as the Respondent kissed T.C. on her cheek. The student did not appear to resist the kiss. The officer reported his observations to the assistant principal who contacted another transportation supervisor and requested that the Respondent be removed from his employment as a bus driver at Pinellas Park High School. The Respondent was called to a meeting with the administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. During the discussion of the matter, the Respondent admitted that he had hugged and kissed T.C. on campus. During the discussion, the Respondent also admitted that he and the student had engaged in oral sex in January, 1994. By letter of March 3, 1994, the Respondent was notified that he was suspended with pay and that the superintendent would recommend dismissal to the school board at the meeting of March 23, 1994. A number of stories related to this matter have appeared in the local press, including the March 18, 1994 issues of the St. Petersburg Times and the Tampa Tribune. Engaging in sexual activity with a student is conduct serious enough to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school district and to bring the service of the School Board of Pinellas County into disrepute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Howard Jessie. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1876 The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County P. O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Mr. Howard Jessie 15695 Waverly Street, Apartment 2 Clearwater, Florida 34620
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
