The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, Edna Jane Bowman, should be terminated from her position as a teacher with the Duval County School Board (DCSB) for good cause, based on alleged incompetence, as that status is defined at Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended (Tenure Act).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been a full-time "tenured" teacher for the School Board during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years and for a total of 28 years. She is certified by the State Department of Education in the area of Social Studies, grades five through nine, as well as other fields such has History (grades six through twelve). Like other teachers in the School District, her performance was evaluated annually by the principals of the schools where she taught. During the relevant school years, referenced above, the Teacher Assessment System (TAS) was the primary method used for evaluating teachers. John Williams has 39 years of experience in the field of K through 12 education and is the Board's Director of Professional Standards. He is familiar with the TAS and manages the District level officials who are responsible for proper administration of the TAS in teacher evaluation. The TAS measures teaching performance based on nine different "Competencies." These include: Promotes student growth and performance. Evaluates instructional needs of students. Plans and delivers effective instruction. Shows knowledge of subject matter. Utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment. Communicates with parents. Pursues professional growth. Demonstrates professional behaviors. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 22, in evidence). Teachers are evaluated by a school administrator, typically the principal, based on two formal classroom observations, which are announced to the teacher ahead of time. The Teacher Assessment Instrument (TAI) is used to collect data and identify indicators associated with each competency criterion. In evaluating a teacher's performance, administrators or principals may also employ informal, unannounced observations and use the results thus obtained in evaluating the teacher's performance. The "Evaluation of Professional Growth of Teacher" is an evaluation form used during the final annual evaluation conference. The form reflects the teacher's final rating as to each competency area and also reflects the teacher's overall performance rating for the school year. The TAS delineates the steps in conducting a performance assessment or evaluation of the teacher beginning with an instructional session and a pre-observation conference and then proceeding with the observation process. If a teacher demonstrates deficient performance in any competency area, a "success plan" is written in collaboration with the teacher. Although the success plan may be implemented at any time, it must be implemented by February 1st of a given school year for teachers who have the potential to receive an overall annual rating of "unsatisfactory." A success plan identifies areas of weakness by competency category, sets out objectives to be achieved, and provides timelines to meet those objectives. A success plan team is assembled and, in addition to the teacher, it is typically composed of school administrators, teachers with expertise in a subject matter that the deficient teacher is struggling with, and "resources teachers" or "coaches." The various steps and procedures in conducting a success plan and success plan team effort is delineated in the TAS, shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 22, in evidence. Ms. Bowman worked at Jefferson Davis Middle School (Jefferson Davis) during the 2007-2008 school year. Mr. Addison Davis was principal of Jefferson Davis. Mr. Davis made multiple informal observations of Ms. Bowman's teaching and provided her with his opinions, based on his observations, including concerns he had about a lack of lesson plans and failure to implement a District-wide "workshop model." The workshop model requires classroom activities where small groups of students work collaboratively to complete an activity or project and achieve certain curriculum student standards. Mr. Davis explained that model is particularly effective for students whose primary language is not English. Several of such students were assigned to Ms. Bowman's classes during that school year. Principal Davis also noted that the Respondent did not provide students with academic and behavioral expectations, did not adequately assess student performance and failed to use student portfolios. He opined that he observed a disconnection between student needs and the instruction provided, intended to serve those needs. Mr. Davis also observed a lack of instruction in some instances, in which students were directed to sit down, be quiet, or read portions of a text book. Due to observed deficiencies, a Success Plan was put into place on November 8, 2007, with Ms. Bowman's input. The Success Plan outlined areas of weakness, objectives toward improvements in those areas, with timelines. The Success Team included experienced teaching coaches who were available to model appropriate instruction for Ms. Bowman on several occasions. Ms. Bowman opposed the Success Plan, viewing it as unnecessary, essentially as harassment by the School District's administration. She failed to attend any of the bi-weekly meetings which were held throughout the entire school year. Mr. Davis also conducted two formal observations on December 10, 2007 and January 30, 2008. He met with Ms. Bowman before each formal observation to set a date for the observation and to discuss the lesson plan to be observed. They discussed the data related to the lesson plan, showing the relevance of the lesson to student needs and showing how student learning would be assessed. Ms. Bowman, however, failed to provide any assessment data, and, in lieu of that information, she submitted a "District Learning Guide" from three years past, which was not sufficiently related to the 2007-2008 curriculum. During the formal observation, Mr. Davis witnessed a period of 25 to 30 minutes during class time when there was no instruction. He saw students asleep at their desks and some arguing between the teacher and several students. He observed that there was a continuing failure to implement the "Workshop Model" and to provide students with academic and behavioral expectations. He saw a lack of assessment of student performance and a failure to use student portfolios. There was a continued disconnection between student needs and the instruction being given, supposedly to serve their needs. Mr. Davis gave the Respondent a number of warnings about the above-referenced deficiencies, based upon his observations, and their post-observation conferences. He encouraged the Respondent to participate in her Success Plan but she continued to refuse to cooperate. Ms. Leslie Sarjeant was an instructional coach and Success Team Member. She corroborated the fact that Ms. Bowman rejected the Success Plan process and did not participate. Rather than participating in the Success Plan for her own remediation Ms. Sarjeant described Ms. Bowman as railing against what she believed were the ill motives of the DCSB in criticizing her performance and embarking on the Success Plan process, which she believed was a pre-conceived effort to terminate her. The TAI forms completed by Principal Davis, and others completed by Assistant Principal Torrence, showed Ms. Bowman's failure to demonstrate competencies in promoting student growth and performance, evaluating instructional needs, and planning and delivering effective instruction. Mr. Davis then issued a "Notice of Potential Unsatisfactory Performance" to the Respondent on January 2, 2008. The evaluation of the Respondent was issued on January 31, 2008, reflecting unsatisfactory performance in the following competency areas: promoting student growth and performance, planning and delivering effective instruction, and demonstrating professional behaviors. Mr. John Williams, a District administrator, issued a formal Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance on May 7, 2008. In accordance with DCSB policy, after a first such unsatisfactory rating, he gave the Respondent the option to transfer to another school. Ms. Bowman elected to transfer to Southside Middle School, to teach seventh grade Social Studies and Geography for the following school year, 2008-2009. Ms. Bowman introduced a satisfactory evaluation of her teaching by Principal Davis, for the school year 2005-2006, in order to attack his credibility concerning the testimony about the unsatisfactory performance. This evaluation was done shortly after Principal Davis had been assigned to Jefferson Davis, in December of 2005. She maintained that he changed his opinion only after she wrote a letter to a local newspaper critical of DCSB administration, concerning certain policies regarding student attendance, discipline, promotion, etc. She did not, however, criticize DCSB administrators, and particularly not Principal Davis personally. This contention is not persuasive because Ms. Bowman, in past years, had also made similar accusations that other school administrators/principals had retaliated against her by the use of performance evaluations. She, for instance, raised concerns in a memorandum to the DCSB's human resources office in which she contended that the administration was using her evaluations, in 2004, as a means of retaliation. The contention that Principal Davis was retaliating against her at Jefferson Davis Middle School because she wrote the letter to the local newspaper is less than credible, inasmuch as these other complaints as to retaliation, as to her past evaluations, arose in earlier school years (2004-2005), and the other referenced events at Jefferson Davis Middle School occurred before Principal Davis was ever assigned to that school. The principal at Southside Middle School (Southside) during 2008-2009 school year was Ms. Latanya McNeal. She has 14 years of experience in education, with eight years as a school administrator. Because the Respondent received an unsatisfactory evaluation for the prior year, and in light of her early observations of Ms. Bowman, Ms. McNeal initiated a Professional Development Plan (PDP) on August 28, 2008. Ms. Bowman signed acknowledgement of that plan. The PDP stressed the importance of: (a) maintaining and developing lesson plans based on student data/assessment of needs; (b) maintaining and using classroom materials tied to academic standards; (c) effectively using portfolios containing student work tied to curriculum and academic standards; and (d) continuous use of the workshop model. Although these were announced ahead of time, and despite Ms. Bowman's knowledge of the PDP and the Southside Classroom Observation Checklist, outlining duties she should perform, two subsequent informal observations on September 3, 2008, and September 24, 2008, revealed little progress toward the goals stated in the PDP. The observation checklists and "observation follow-up forms" for each observation showed the following deficiencies: "teacher needs to plan lessons that align to the standard"; "no instruction, students given worksheets, no connection to standard or text"; (c) "no workshop model, no evidence of portfolios"; (d) "no evidence of instruction"; (e) "presents a negative student/teacher environment . . .". After observation of these deficiencies on these occasions, a Success Plan for the Respondent was created and initiated on November 3, 2008. The Success Plan included all the concerns outlined in the PDP and focused on data-driven instruction, use of portfolios, assessment of student needs, measurement and explanation of student progress, and use of the CHAMPS program. The CHAMPS program is classroom management program used through out the School District. All teachers, including the Respondent, have been trained in its use. A "Success Plan Team" was established, consisting of Principal McNeal, other administrators and teachers, as well as a reading coach and an instructional coach. Regularly scheduled meetings were announced, held, and attended by most members of the team. The Respondent did not cooperate with the efforts of the Success Plan Team. At the first meeting she refused to speak about the plan, but insisted upon discussing and discrediting the evaluations of her by Principal McNeal. The Respondent was provided training and technical support with two computer programs, Compass Odyssey and FCAT Explorer. These are used to assess student needs and to track student progress. Despite the training and the need to use data to drive instruction, the Respondent never used either program or other student assessment programs. She acknowledged and expressed appreciation for the support and assistance provided to her by the Success Team members, but rejected the idea that instruction can be individualized based on student needs. The Respondent also failed to institute a portfolio system and refused to observe another teacher conducting a teacher-parent conference. As of January 30, 2009, five months into the school year, the Respondent had not yet submitted a five-day lesson plan, as required of every teacher at Southside. After conclusion of the Success Plan; Ms. Bowman complained that she was being singled out for purposes of termination. Although the Success Plan was noted as completed on February 25, 2009, Ms. Bowman did not integrate the plans, strategies, or objectives into her classroom instruction. Principal McNeal conducted two formal observations on December 22, 2008, and March 11, 2009. Before each formal observation she met with the Respondent to identify a date for a formal observation and to discuss the lesson plan to be observed, the data tied to it, showing student needs, the relevance of the lesson, and how student learning would be assessed. Implementation and use of portfolios, small group workshop models, and the CHAMPS program were also discussed. During the formal observations, Principal McNeal observed and documented on the TAI forms that no evidence of student portfolios existed. There was no evidence of differentiated/workshop instruction or data to guide instruction. There were incomplete grade books and no assessment of learning. There was no evidence of use of the CHAMPS program and it was noted that the Respondent engaged in "shouting matches" with students. She allowed one student to sleep throughout the observation, only to yell "wakeup" at the student when someone came to the door to pick the student up. A progress report, dated March 5, 2009, shows that a substantial number of Ms. Bowman's students were failing. The progress report shows that her students had only three graded items from January through March 5, 2009. One of these was an undefined "extra credit" entry. In her first class she had 16 students. Five of those students had F's and two had D's. In her second class she had 24 students with 13 having F's and two with D's. In another class of 28 students, nine had F's, four had D's, and two had no grades at all. See Petitioner's Supplemental Exhibits 32 and 33, in evidence. Although Principal McNeal discussed these and other concerns with Ms. Bowman, at the post-observation meetings, her concerns were unaddressed. Ample opportunity was given the Respondent during that school year to take part in training and workshops. The absentee report showed that 14 of Ms. Bowman's absences that school year were taken for training and workshops. She was also given the opportunity to have instructional and reading coaches come into her class, prepare lesson plans with her and model instruction for her. According to Ms. McNeal, however, as well as Instructional Coach Shakethia Butler, the Respondent rejected the idea of collaborating with others in planning and instruction. On March 13, 2009, Principal McNeal issued the Respondent's evaluation for the year. It showed unsatisfactory performance as to the following competencies: (a) promotes student growth and performance; (b) evaluates instructional needs of students; (e) utilizes appropriate classroom management techniques, including the ability to maintain appropriate discipline; (f) shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school environment; and (g) communicates with parents. The Respondent received and signed that annual evaluation, but did not accept its contents and wrote a notation on the document to the effect that the evaluation was done on the second day of the FCAT testing and that the principal had not followed the evaluation schedule. However, both the Director of Professional Standards, John Williams, as well as Principal McNeal, established that observations are permitted on FCAT test days and that the FCAT had only been administered in the morning. That left the Respondent with more than three hours of instructional time in the afternoon during which she could be observed. Moreover, the conference form signed by Ms. Bowman on March 6, 2009, indicated her agreement with and approval of the March 11, 2009, observation date. As was the case with Principal Davis, the Respondent attacked the credibility of Principal McNeal, and the evaluation she prepared, with the argument that the evaluations were a pretext for retaliation against her based upon her "outspoken attitude." Ms. Bowman's work history shows a pattern of similar accusations of retaliation against several other principals at other schools where she taught. Thus, she accused the principal at Eugene Butler Middle School of giving her poor evaluations based upon "lies and revenge." She made accusations that she was retaliated against regarding matters concerning her evaluation for "being outspoken" and complained of being treated unfairly and harassed while at James Weldon Johnson Middle School. She accused the principal at yet another school, (J.E.B. Stuart Middle School) of conjuring up false evaluations of her based upon race discrimination, because, as she testified at hearing, discrimination had occurred "because everyone involved was African-American." She also made complaints, as found above, regarding her 2004-2005 teacher evaluations at Jefferson Davis Middle School as being based on retaliation. This was before Principal Davis was assigned to that school. In summary, the Respondent has demonstrated the above- found deficiencies in the competency areas referenced. This ultimately resulted in the two successive unsatisfactory evaluations, in two successive school years. The parties have stipulated that, under the Tenure Act, two successive unsatisfactory annual evaluations can provide grounds for termination of employment as a teacher. Moreover, when the above-found plans and efforts to help the Respondent improve her performance were inaugurated, the Respondent fairly consistently refused to cooperate with that performance improvement process.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Duval County School Board terminating the Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 12th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. D'Agata Assistant General Counsel General Counsel's Office City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Edna Jane Bowman 1043 Talbot Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Ed Pratt-Daniels, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182
Findings Of Fact Allan Bonilla, currently Principal of Riviera Junior High School, was one of at least two assistant principals who attempted to work with Venus Tara Rodriguez during her 7th grade experience there in the 1984-1985 regular school year. He has been employed four years at that facility. Immediately prior to the winter vacation (commonly known as the extended Christmas holidays), on December 20, 1984, Venus left the campus without prior permission, this activity resulted in a two-day indoor suspension. In February, 1985, she received a three-day indoor suspension as the result of tardiness which culminated in an outdoor suspension the same month because her behavior at the three-day indoor suspension was so disruptive that it was deemed ineffective for her and the other students. In March, 1985, her rude and disruptive classroom behavior resulted in two indoor suspensions. In April 1985, as a result of her refusal to work during the last indoor suspension, she was assigned an outdoor suspension. Mr. Bonilla did not work with Venus as regularly as another assistant principal who was not available for hearing, but he expressed personal knowledge of the foregoing events and had interacted with Venus on several occasions for being out of class and boisterous. His assessment was that Venus could do the work required of her but that her behavior was so disruptive in the classroom that at the conclusion of the regular 1984-1985 school year she was failing two out of six subjects and was doing approximately "D" work in the rest. He agreed with the decision to assign her to an alternative school program, which decision was made because of Venus' need of individual attention and smaller class due to her habit of "acting out" in large groups. Venus' parents were contacted concerning each suspension. Mr. Bonilla testified that Venus has successfully finished 7th grade during the 1985 summer school session at GRE Lee opportunity School and he has received notice she will be reassigned and enrolled at Riviera Junior High School for the 1985-1986 school year commencing in September 1985.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Venus Tara Rodriguez to Riviera Junior High School. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ms. Wilhelmina A. Rodriguez 4110 S. W. 104th Place Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1510 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Broward County School Board (School Board) is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Meadowbrook Elementary School (Meadowbrook), Tropical Elementary School (Tropical), and Everglades Elementary School (Everglades)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. For five years, beginning in 2004, Joseph Tamburino was the area coordinator of student services for the School Board's South Central Office (SCO), overseeing the activities of the office's five-person secretarial staff, as well as the approximately 70 "itinerant" school psychologists and school social workers assigned to work at schools within the SCO's service area. Among these schools were Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school social worker since September 2000. She presently holds a professional services contract. From 2004 until August 2009, Respondent worked out of the SCO under the immediate supervision of Mr. Tamburino. During this time, she never received less than a satisfactory annual performance appraisal from Mr. Tamburino; however, in the "comments" section of the last appraisal he gave Respondent (for the 2008-2009 school year), Mr. Tamburino did write, "Jessica should work on improving absenteeism and performance issues such as task completion, timelines and adhering to work hours." During the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino "beg[a]n to have problems" with Respondent's being where she was supposed to be during the school day. These "problems" persisted, despite Mr. Tamburino's efforts to address them at meetings with Respondent and in written correspondence he sent her. Following the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent a "Letter of Reprimand," dated August 14, 2007, which read as follows: This correspondence is submitted as a formal reprimand for your failure to follow office procedures. This is the second occasion that I have had to meet with you regarding not being present at your assigned schools for the full workday. We met on February 1, 2007 because you were not in your assigned schools for the full workday (7.5 hours) over a period of five days. Furthermore, we met on June 1, 2007, because you were not in your assigned schools during the hours you were required to be present on May 4 and May 24, 2007. Know and understand that this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by this administration. You are hereby directed from this point forward, to comply with all administrative directives. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action such as a referral to Professional Standards and the Special Investigative Unit, suspension or termination. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on August 14, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Less than four months later, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent another "Letter of Reprimand," which was dated December 7, 2007, and read as follows: This letter is submitted as a formal reprimand for your continued failure to follow office procedure and falsification of records. On November 8, 2007 you were not in your assigned school for 7.5 hours. You called the South Central Student Services office and reported that you were leaving New River Middle School at 4:00 p.m. However, you were seen at a store at a shopping plaza at 3:00 p.m. Although you did not work a full day on November 8, 2007, you falsely reported to a Student Services secretary that you finished your workday after 7.5 hours. This is the second written reprimand that you have received within the last four months for failure to follow office procedures and falsification of records. This behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. You are directed to comply with office procedures, work your full 7.5 hour day, and sign in and out with accurate times. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on December 17, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Respondent did not file a grievance "specifically challenging" either the August 14, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand," or the December 7, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand." On March 17, 2008, Dr. Tamburino sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, we have had two recent meetings that have included discussions of following office procedures, the provision of social work services and collaboration with the community liaison and other personnel. On February 1, 2008 we had a meeting with Jerrod Neal from BTU and Ellen Williams, the Social Work BTU Steward. We examined possible discrepancies between dates listed for home visits on a log at New River and your November mileage voucher. Although there were L-panel entries to verify the home visits, there was inconsistent documentation of the addresses on the mileage voucher. However, you decided to withdraw your request for mileage reimbursement. Suggestions to improve your work performance were discussed. These include the following: * * * - Specific time of the home visits, including leaving and returning to campus, need to be documented. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was assigned to provide school social work services at three schools: Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. She was supposed to be at Meadowbrook on Mondays, Tropical on Wednesdays, and Everglades on Thursdays. On Tuesdays, she went to whichever of the three assigned schools "need[ed] [her]," and she also did "home visits." Fridays were designated as "office days." On these "office days," Respondent was expected to do "paperwork" that needed to be completed. Respondent was allowed to use office space at Meadowbrook as her "Friday office" instead of going to the SCO (which was farther from her residence than was Meadowbrook). Respondent missed a considerable amount of work during the 2008-2009 school year due to her daughter's, as well as her own, health-related issues, "exhaust[ing] her sick leave" before the year was half over. (By December, she "didn't have any sick days" left.) Respondent and the other school social workers and school psychologists working out of the SCO were required to notify the office's secretarial staff, by telephone (or in person, if at the SCO), of their whereabouts whenever they arrived at or left a work-related destination during the school day (Call In Office Procedure). It was the duty and routine practice of the secretarial staff, upon receiving such a call, to enter the information provided by the caller concerning the caller's location (as well as the date and time the call was received) on an "online call-in log" (Call Log) maintained by the SCO so as to have a record of these calls. The Call In Office Procedure and other "[o]ffice [p]rocedures" were discussed in a document entitled, "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year," which Mr. Tamburino provided "[a]ll the South Central Office . . . [p]ersonnel," including Respondent, at the very beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The document read, in pertinent part, as follows: Attendance is reported daily by Joyce [Doe] (social workers) . . . to the payroll department. You must call Joyce . . . prior to taking any leave (e.g., personal, sick, other.) You must call each day you are taking sick leave (unless otherwise arranged with the Area Coordinator [Mr. Tamburino]). Call the office twice daily, when you arrive at your location and before you leave for the day (for example, for most elementary schools by 7:30 AM, and 3:00 PM). You should call from a school telephone. If you do not call in, you may be considered absent. You are expected to be in your assigned school 7.5 hours (same work hours as the teachers). If you leave a school for another destination, be sure to inform personnel at school and one of the secretaries in our office. When you are at the Area Office, please be sure that our secretaries log you in. A schedule of team meetings is provided at the beginning of each year. Attendance at all scheduled team meetings is mandatory. A planning day is a 7.5 hour workday. * * * Mileage vouchers must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the month per the Superintendent. Use the exact mileage to schools listed in SCA mileage chart. Requests for more than one month may not be approved. * * * You must request and obtain an approved TDA [Temporary Duty Authorization] from the Area Coordinator when performing duties in a different location other than your regular assignment. TDA request forms should be completed 10 days prior to the workshop/event. Return to the office at least once a week to handle office duties. The Area Coordinator monitors the quality of your work and evaluates your performance at least annually. The Area Coordinator makes all school assignments. In addition to having to follow these SCO "[o]ffice [p]rocedures," Respondent and her fellow "itinerant" workers, when they were at their assigned schools, were "under [the] direction" of the school's principal and had to do what the principal "dictated." During the 2008-2009 school year, the principal of Meadowbrook "wanted her ['itinerant'] employees to sign in/sign out when they came on [and when they left] campus," and there was a "sign in/sign out" sheet posted at the school for "itinerant" employees to sign, date, and note their "time in" and "time out." Respondent "knew" of Meadowbrook's "sign in/sign out" "procedure," and routinely complied with it (when she was actually at the school that school year). Respondent was not present, and therefore did not "sign in," at Meadowbrook on any of the following dates: Friday, October 3, 2008; Friday, October 31, 2008; Friday, January 9, 2009; Friday, February 6, 2009; Friday, February 13, 2009; Friday, February 20, 2009; and Monday, February 23, 2009. Nonetheless, she telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Meadowbrook on each of these days (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log), obviously knowing this information to be false.4 February 4, 2009, was a Wednesday, the day Respondent was supposed to be at Tropical. On that day, Respondent telephoned the SCO secretarial staff at 8:05 a.m. to report she was at Tropical, and called back at 5:56 p.m. to advise that she was leaving the school (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). In fact, Respondent was not at Tropical during the school day on February 4, 2009.5 Her reporting otherwise was a knowingly-made false misrepresentation. March 20, 2009, was a Friday and thus an "office day" for Respondent. Respondent had made arrangements to attend a conference that day. In accordance with the "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year" that Mr. Tamburino had handed out at the start of the school year, Respondent had "request[ed] [on February 25, 2009] and subsequently obtain[ed] [on March 16, 2009] an approved TDA" from Mr. Tamburino to go to the conference (instead of doing the work she was "regular[ly] assign[ed]"). Respondent, however, did not go to the March 20, 2009, conference.6 Nonetheless, at 8:40 a.m. on March 20, 2009, she falsely and deceptively reported to the SCO secretarial staff over the telephone that she was on her "temporary duty" assignment (at the conference). At no time that day did Respondent advise the SCO secretarial staff that she was at her regular "Friday office" location, Meadowbrook,7 or that she was leaving that location (to pick up her sick daughter at school, or for any other reason). Furthermore, Respondent's leave records reveal that she did not take any type of leave that day. (Had she taken leave to care for her sick daughter that day, it would had to have been unpaid leave because she had no paid leave time left.)8 To receive reimbursement for non-commuting "travel expenses [she claimed she incurred] in the performance of [her] official duties" as a school social worker (that is, for mileage in excess of the 22.6 miles from her home to her office (at Meadowbrook) and back, reimbursed at a rate of 55 cents per mile, plus parking and tolls), Respondent had to submit mileage vouchers (on School Board Form 3042, Revised 09/05) to Mr. Tamburino for his approval.9 Respondent certified, by her signature on the forms, that her "claim[s] [were] true and correct" and that the "expenses [claimed] were actually incurred by [her]." Among the mileage vouchers she submitted were those covering the months of January 2009 (January Voucher) and February 2009 (February Voucher). There were entries on both the January and February Vouchers that were inconsistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on the dates for which these entries were made (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 6, 2009, she had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first at Meadowbrook, then at the SCO, and finally on a home visit. On the January Voucher, for Friday, January 9, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Meadowbrook" (a trip of 0 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "Meadowbrook to KCW [School Board headquarters]" (a trip of 5.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "KCW to Everglades" (a trip of 17.7 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), and "Everglades to Home (a trip of 14.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 9, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at School Board headquarters and at Meadowbrook.) On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 20, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 20, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit and then at Everglades. On the February Voucher, for Tuesday, February 3, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 3, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at Meadowbrook and on a home visit.) On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 6, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit, then at Meadowbrook, and finally at the SCO. On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 13, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 13, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at the SCO any time that day. (She had only reported being on a home visit and at Meadowbrook.10) On the February Voucher, for Wednesday, February 4, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Tropical to Home" (a trip of 9.8 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"). Unlike the other entries on the January and February Vouchers discussed above, this entry was entirely consistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on that day; however, as noted above, she had not been truthful in making such a telephonic report to the SCO secretarial staff. It was Mr. Tamburino's responsibility to check all of his subordinates' mileage vouchers, including Respondent's, "for accuracy" before approving them. Because "there [were] discrepanc[ies] between what was on the [January and February] [V]oucher[s] and what was on the [C]all [L]og," Mr. Tamburino did not approve these vouchers. Instead, he "forward[ed] the mileage voucher issue to the [School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit] for investigation."11 On or about April 23, 2009, Respondent was provided a Notice of Investigation (dated April 17, 2008), which read as follows: This correspondence is provided as formal notice of investigation into a complaint received in this office regarding allegations that you falsified records. You will be contacted in the near future for the purpose of giving a statement. You have the right to representation through all phases of this investigation. You are directed not to engage the complainant, or any student witness, or any other witness in any conversation regarding the matter under investigation. A violation of this directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Questions regarding the status of this investigation are to be directed to Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit at (754)321-0735. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file will be part of your personnel file and will be public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days after completion of the investigative process. Investigator Johanna Davidson was the School Board employee in the Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit who conducted the investigation. As part of her investigation, Investigator Davidson took a sworn statement from Respondent on June 4, 2009.12 In her sworn statement, Respondent told Investigator Davidson, among other things, that she arrived at Meadowbrook at "around 8:00" a.m. on March 20, 2009, and stayed there "all day"13; that she "knew that [signing-in] was the procedure" at Meadowbrook; that this "procedure" had been in place for the past year and a half; that she signed in at Meadowbrook "99 percent of the time"; that she "may have missed one or two sign-ins" at Meadowbrook, but she did not "think [she] had"; and that she is "a very procedure and policy oriented person," so it would have been "odd" had she not signed in at Meadowbrook, even during the time, from January to April 2009, when she had been "on crutches."14 When asked by Investigator Davidson "what happened that day, February 4, 2009," Respondent made no mention of having been in the teacher's lounge at Tropical (where, in her testimony at the final hearing, she falsely claimed she had been the entire school day on February 4, 2009, leaving only once to go to the bathroom across the hall). Rather, in response to Investigator Davidson's inquiry, she suggested that this day (February 4, 2009) might have been one of the many days that school year that she had "taken off" because of health-related issues and that she had not "communicated properly" concerning her having "taken off" that day. Investigator Davidson completed her investigation and issued an Investigative Report detailing her findings in late June 2009. Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report contained a section entitled, "Summary of Investigation," the first paragraph of which read as follows: A Personnel Investigation Request pertaining to School Social Worker Jessica Harrison was received in the Office of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit. Ms. Harrison was accused of Falsification of Records stemming from the following alleged incidents: Ms. Harrison allegedly submitted a Temporary Duty Authorization (TDA) request to attend a conference but did not attend the conference, and allegedly reported to the South Central Area Student Services office that she was in attendance. Two of Ms. Harrison's assigned schools reported that Ms. Harrison was not in attendance on several days. Ms. Harrison allegedly did not report her absences to the South Central Area Student Services office. Ms. Harrison allegedly falsified mileage vouchers. The information that Investigator Davidson had obtained supporting these allegations was detailed in succeeding paragraphs of this section. (It was this information upon which the "[s]pecific [c]harges" in the instant Administrative Complaint were based.) The School Board's Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, to consider the results of Investigator Davidson's investigation and "found probable cause of falsification of records" warranting Respondent's termination. On September 16, 2009, Craig Kowalski, the Acting Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, sent Respondent a letter, which read as follows: The Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, and found probable cause of falsification of records. The Committee has recommended termination. Please be advised by way of this correspondence that you have been scheduled for a pre-disciplinary conference on Monday, October 5, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in my office, which is located on the third floor of the Technical Support Services Center, 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida. You have the right to representation at this conference. If for some reason you are unable to be present at this conference you must contact my office by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, 2009. You have previously been furnished with a full report. You are not to disseminate these documents to the public and/or media since it may contain protected information. If you have a representative, it is your responsibility to furnish him/her with copies of your documentation. Your failure or refusal to appear at this conference will be considered a waiver of this procedural requirement. A copy of the Special Investigative Unit report and this letter are being forwarded to the Professional Practices Department of the State Department of Education to determine if certificate disciplinary action is warranted. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file is now a part of your personnel file and is a public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days from receipt of this letter. Any request made by the public for the documentation referred to above will be provided in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Questions regarding this correspondence are to be directed to my office (754)321-0735. The "pre-disciplinary conference" was held on October 5, 2009, as scheduled. Present at the conference were Mr. Kowalski; Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire (on behalf of the School Board); Respondent; and Jerrod Neal of the Broward Teachers Union, whom Respondent had asked to speak on her behalf. Prior to the conference, Respondent had received, and had had the opportunity to review, Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report. During the conference, Respondent affirmatively adopted the admission made by her representative at the meeting, Mr. Neal, that she had engaged in the "falsification" of which she was being accused (as described in the Investigative Report). The following is a verbatim recitation of what was said at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference": MR. KOWALSKI: This is a pre-disciplinary hearing for School Board employee Jessica Harrison. We are here pursuant to an investigative report dated June 30th, 2009. This investigation was based upon allegations of falsification of records. The Professional Standards Committee has reviewed this matter and has made a recommendation for disciplinary action. The disciplinary action is for termination. Have you received a copy of the investigative report? MS. HARRISON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: The purpose of this pre- disciplinary conference is to give you the opportunity to bring forward any additional matters that you believe should be considered before final decision as to disciplinary action is reached. Such matters include any additional evidence, witnesses or any matter that you believe should be considered. This is also an opportunity to say anything which you believe should be considered on your behalf. I am going to ask you if you identify additional witnesses, please identify what you believe the witness knows or would testify to or what the witness can contribute to this investigation. Do you understand the purpose of this meeting? MS. HARRISON: Um-hm. Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: Is there anything you wish to say, do you have any additional matters that you believe should be considered.? MR. NEAL: Let me speak on her behalf, because I think Ms. Harrison has pretty much said a lot of things at the Professional Standards Committee meeting. Since we've talked, since the information that was gathered during the investigation, I have really had a chance to look over it, I was really surprised by the recommendation of termination. Not eliminating what happened, because what happened as far as falsification of records, it was done. But circumstances surrounding it, I don't think it really warrants termination, considering that it is not an easy thing when you're going through a lot of personal problems. Once again, it doesn't justify what was done. But I think under the circumstances, decisions were made with not a lot of clear thought, and I really believe that Ms. Harrison's intention, from what I have known over the last couple of years, have always been good. I just think it's a matter of the things that she was actually going through. She should have brought them to the forefront earlier so there could have been a better understanding of what was going on, not an excuse for it, but a better understanding for what was going on. And you know, I would not be in my duty if I don't mention the fact that there has been so much, or so many other things that have been done through the district that should have warranted termination and people were not terminated. And I just think this is a situation where termination is to the extreme. Whereas some sort of punishment should happen, but termination is just way too much for this situation, because I think in her state of mind as she is now, I don't think these mistakes will be made again. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Do you want to add anything Ms. Harrison? MS: HARRISON: I think he summed it up. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know the outcome. MR. Neal: Okay. About how long will that be. And he will let you know, so that means you will have to let me know once they let you know. MR. KOWALSKI: I have to meet with the Superintendent, and so within two weeks. MR. NEAL: Okay. Until then you just go back to doing what you have been doing. MS. HARRISON: Okay. MR. NEAL: All right. Appreciate it. Ms. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Mr. NEAL: Thank you. (emphasis supplied).15 The plea for leniency that Mr. Neal made on behalf of Respondent proved to be unsuccessful. On October 30, 2009, Broward County Superintendent of Schools Notter issued an Administrative Complaint recommending that Respondent be terminated for the "falsification" of attendance records and mileage vouchers described in Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report (conduct that Respondent had admitted, at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference," she had engaged in).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a professional service contract school social worker with the School Board for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, holds Florida teaching certificate number 286085 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering the area of physical education and junior college. The Respondent has held a valid teaching certificate since 1971. The Respondent began teaching in 1971 in the field of physical education at Hollywood Park Elementary School in Hollywood, Florida. He later taught at Sterling Elementary School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for one year, and for five years at Stephen Foster Elementary School in Fort Lauderdale. The Respondent's latest employment was as a physical education teacher at Spring Hill Elementary School in Hernando County for over 3 academic years. The Respondent's teaching performance and ability have never been less than satisfactory, and he received satisfactory teaching evaluations during his last employment at Spring Hill Elementary School. The principal of Spring Hill Elementary School had the opportunity to observe the Respondent for approximately one and one-half years, and during this time completed two performance evaluations of the Respondent. He is an enthusiastic teacher who works effectively with children. The Respondent also served as teacher-in- charge in the absence of the principal. The Respondent and the subject minor male student first met during the 1979-1980 school year while the Respondent was teaching physical education at West Hernando Elementary School, now named Spring Hill Elementary School. This minor was a student in the Respondent's physical education class, and also became a physical education helper in this fifth grade class. The Respondent and the minor became good friends. During the ensuing four years they participated in various recreational activities together. The minor and the Respondent frequently went jogging, bike riding, motorcycling, canoeing, lifted weights, and played basketball. In the summer of 1983, they engaged in a lawn mowing business and purchased a motorcycle together. The minor babysat for the Respondent and his wife frequently during his seventh, eighth, and ninth grade years, and in 1983 he babysat for them approximately three or four times a month until August. Between 1982 and 1983, the minor's relationship with the Respondent and his family intensified. The minor began to call the Respondent's home, and visit with the Respondent and his family so frequently that the Respondent started to avoid these telephone calls. The minor was visiting at the Respondent's home, or they would see each other, nearly every day. During the summer of 1983 the Respondent and the minor terminated their lawn mowing business. At about the same time the Respondent and his wife began to indicate to the minor that he was spending too much time with the Respondent and his family, and they suggested that he spend more time with his own mother and father. The minor's involvement with the Respondent's household began to decrease at this point, which was around the end of August, 1983. On the evening in late August, before school started in 1983, which is the occasion of the first allegation of sexual misconduct against the Respondent, the minor was babysitting for the Respondent and his wife at their home. They returned at approximately 11:30 P.M., and found the minor asleep on the couch in the living room. This was not unusual, as the Respondent and his wife would often find the minor asleep on the couch while babysitting, if they returned home at a late hour. After a brief conversation, the minor retired upstairs to the bedroom of Douglas, the son of the Respondent. After using the bathroom, the Respondent retired to the parents' bedroom on the first floor; his wife followed shortly thereafter. The Respondent did not leave his bedroom during the night. Neither did he proceed upstairs during the night, awaken the minor, and bring him downstairs. Several undisputed facts lead to this finding. The Respondent's wife is a very light sleeper. When the Respondent arises during the night, she is aware of it. She is often awakened by sounds in the house, especially from her children upstairs. The Respondent is a heavy sleeper who normally does not arise during the night. Moreover, the Respondent's bedroom is adjacent to the living room, where the alleged misconduct occurred. While in this bedroom, noise and voices from the adjacent living room are easily heard. The room of the Respondent's son, Douglas, is directly over the Respondent's bedroom. While in the Respondent's bedroom, noise and sound from the son's bedroom, including footsteps, can be heard. From the Respondent's bedroom, the sound of anyone using the adjacent staircase can be heard. Yet the Respondent's wife heard no sound or voices during the night, either from her son's bedroom upstairs, or from the staircase. Neither did she hear voices or sound from the adjacent living room during the night. On a Thursday night, October 6, 1983, the minor and the Respondent attended a concert in Lakeland, Florida. The minor had the permission of his parents to attend this concert. On the way home after the concert, they stopped at Bennigan's on Dale Mabry in Tampa, and ate dinner. They had agreed previously that the minor would pay for the concert tickets and the Respondent would pay for the dinner. Bennigan's was the only stop made by the Respondent and the minor while enroute from the concert to the Respondent's home. The Respondent and the minor arrived at the Respondent's house after the concert at approximately 12:30 A.M. Earlier on this evening, the Respondent's wife attended a painting class in Inverness, which had been meeting once a week on Thursday nights. She was in the kitchen at home working on a class craft project which she had not finished, when the Respondent and the minor arrived. The three of them engaged in a general conversation for approximately a half hour while sitting at the kitchen table. The minor then retired to the upstairs bedroom of Douglas, while the Respondent and his wife remained downstairs. The Respondent spent no time alone in the living room with the minor. The Respondent then retired to his bedroom, and his wife followed shortly thereafter. The Respondent did not arise during the night and leave the bedroom. His wife heard no voices or noise during this night either from the stairs above the bedroom, or from the adjacent living room. The Respondent bad no sexual contact with the minor during either August or October, 1983, or at any other time. These are the relevant facts pertaining to the charges of sexual misconduct which are found from the evidence presented. The minor student testified that one evening near the end of August, but before school started in August of 1983, he babysat for the Respondent. The Respondent's two children went to bed around 9:00 P.M., and because the Respondent and his wife were out late, the minor went to bed in the upstairs bedroom of the Respondent's son. Sometime after the Respondent and his wife returned home, the Respondent awakened the minor and brought him downstairs. The Respondent's two children were upstairs asleep, and his wife had retired for the evening. Once downstairs, the Respondent began massaging the minor's back, then his stomach, and then masturbated him. The minor testified that while doing so, the Respondent told him that he loved him more than just as a friend. The minor testified further, that on October 6, 1983, he and the Respondent attended a concert in the Lakeland Civic Center. He and the Respondent drove to Lakeland alone in the Respondent's automobile. The concert began around 7:00 or 8:00 P.M. and ended approximately 10:00 or 10:30 P.M. After the concert, they drove to a Bennigan's Restaurant in Tampa. Because he is a minor and it was after 9:00 P.M., he was refused admission. The Respondent and the minor left Bennigan's and drove back to Brooksville. On the way, the Respondent stopped at a convenience store and purchased two beers, one for the minor and one for himself. This convenience store is located approximately 20 to 30 miles outside Brooksville, but was not further identified clearly. Because of the lateness of the hour, it had been pre-arranged that the minor would spend the night at the Respondent's house. During this night, in the Respondent's living room, he again began massaging the minor, and masturbated him, and this time also performed oral sex upon the minor. In order to make the findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1 - 13 above, it is not essential that this testimony of the minor be rejected as false. There simply is not sufficient evidence in this record to corroborate the minor's testimony. There is no evidence of any previous sexual misconduct on the part of the Respondent in the twelve years he has been teaching physical education. There is no evidence of any sexual misconduct with the subject minor throughout their years of close relationship, except the two incidents described, even though better opportunities for such misconduct existed frequently. Even on the night of the concert in Lakeland, there were opportunities to abuse the minor in a parking lot or along the road during the trip, instead of in the Respondent's house only a wall away from the eyes and ears of his lightly sleeping wife. The guidance counselor at Spring Hill Elementary School who receives complaints of sexual molestation received none concerning the Respondent. Neither the principal of Spring Hill Elementary School nor the assistant superintendent of the Hernando County School Board received any such complaints concerning the Respondent. The evidence discloses that the Respondent has a reputation for being a law abiding citizen in both his local community and his teaching community. In summary, the evidence, apart from the allegations in this case, is that the Respondent has never made any sexual contact with any minor. Based upon the allegations of sexual misconduct made against him, the Respondent was arrested on December 22, 1983, and charged by information with the offense of sexual battery. On the advice of his attorney, the Respondent entered a plea of no contest, and on April 18, 1983, the Circuit Court entered its order withholding adjudication, placing the Respondent on probation for three years, and assessing court costs of $515.00 against him. Following the Respondent's arrest, various newspaper articles were published reporting the allegations, his prosecution, and his suspension from the teaching position he held. As a result, the local teaching community as well as the student body became aware of the Respondent's situation. Nevertheless, the principal of Spring Hill Elementary School and the assistant superintendent of the Hernando County School Board testified that if the charges against the Respondent were proven to be true, then his effectiveness as a teacher would be seriously impaired, and the principal would not want the Respondent to return to school as a teacher if the allegations were proven to be true. Based upon the failure of the weight of the evidence to support a factual finding that these allegations are true, this testimony is not relevant. Moreover, there is no evidence in this record to support a finding that the Respondent would not be effective as a physical education teacher under the factual situation that is found above, based on the weight of the credible evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Education Practices Committee against the Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, be dismissed. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the charges against the Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, brought by the Hernando County School Board, be dismissed. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Thomas B. Ferris, be reinstated by the Hernando County School Board with full back pay from the date of his suspension. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 30th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Bolder, Esquire P. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 33512 Perry Gall Gruman, Esquire 202 Cardy Street Tampa, Florida 33606
Findings Of Fact Otis J. Clayton was a student at Nautilus Junior High School during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years. He attended Miami Beach Senior High School during the 1985-86 school year until his assignment to the alternative school. While at Nautilus, Clayton had an extensive history of disruptive behavior in class. During the 1983-84 school year, Clayton consistently, regularly and persistently disrupted class by yelling, using abusive language to others including teachers and students, hitting other students, talking and playing in class, and defying authority. He was counseled and disciplined and conferences were held with his mother. Despite constant assistance by the school, Clayton did not change his disruptive behavior. He was finally suspended on June 6, 1984. In addition to his disruptive behavior, Clayton was disinterested and unsuccessful as evidenced by his excessive absences and skipping class. His absences in various classes ranged from 16 to 26 for the 1983-84 school year. During the 1984-85 school year, Clayton's disruptive behavior continued. On February 21, 1985, Clayton was suspended for five days as a result of his disruptive behavior, defiance of school authority and fighting. Again on March 1, 1985, Clayton was disciplined for fighting. Clayton was disciplined and counseled regarding his continuous disruption and defiance in class on March 20, 1885. On March 29, 1985, Clayton was placed on indoor suspension for five days for his repeated disruption, defiance and use of provocative language. Clayton was disciplined on April 2, 1985, for his disruptive behavior and for picking on other students. He was placed on a five day outdoor suspension on April 23, 1985, for his repeated disruption of class, defiance of school authority and assault. Finally, Clayton was again suspended for five days on May 13, 1985, for his repeated disruptive behavior and defiance. Clayton had been hitting other students. During the 1984-85 school year Clayton's absences and skipping class had also increased. He had a cumulative absence total of 34 and a record of absences in various classes ranging from 22 to 71. Clayton began attending Miami Beach Senior High School for the 1985-86 school year. His misbehavior and absenteeism continued. On October 17, 1985, Clayton was disciplined for excessive tardiness. On October 23, 1985, he was again disciplined for excessive tardiness and excessive absences. He was suspended for five days on October 25, 1985 for his general disruptive behavior, defiance, excessive tardiness, refusal to serve detention and refusal to serve an indoor suspension. Finally, on November 4, 1985, Clayton was suspended for 10 days for disruptive behavior, defiance, and excessive tardiness and absences. He had been absent 25 days during the first grading period and he had received grades of F in all classes. On November 5, 1985, the parent was informed by letter that Clayton was being referred to the alternative school program. Because Clayton is an exceptional student, an educational placement staffing conference was held on November 8, 1985. During that staffing a new Individual Educational Plan (IEP) was developed which included placement in the opportunity school at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. Clayton's mother was present at the staffing and signed the IEP approving Clayton's placement at MacArthur.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Otis J. Clayton to the alternative school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-North. DONE AND ENTERED, this 7th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jackie Gabe, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Martha C. Donalds 1558 Northwest 1st Avenue Miami, Florida 33139 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board of Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk 1450 N. E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Richard A. Cohan, was employed by the Dade County School Board as a classroom teacher continuously from the time of his initial hiring in August 1970 until November 19, 1986, when he was suspended by Petitioner. During Respondent's employment with the Dade County School Board, he has taught at Shenendoah Junior High School, Booker T. Washington Junior High School, Kinloch Park Junior High School, Kensington Park Elementary School and Miami Edison Senior High School. Respondent was employed as a continuing contract teacher at Miami Edison Senior High School at all times relevant to the alleged misconduct herein. 1984-85 School Year Respondent's performance as a classroom teacher was satisfactory until the 1984-85 school year when he was absent 41 days from school. Frederick Sturgeon, Principal of Miami Edison Senior High School, made a notation concerning the absences on the Respondent's 1984/85 annual evaluation. 1985-86 School Year The Respondent's absenteeism continued into the 1985-86 school year. On November 5, 1985, Sturgeon held a conference for the record with Respondent because he had been absent 27.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Sturgeon was also concerned because Respondent failed to follow established school procedures when reporting his absences. During the 1985-86 school year, teachers who anticipated an absence were required to call a specific telephone number at the school and leave a taped message. The school secretary could check the messages during the night and arrange for any needed substitutes. The Respondent, however, usually called the school on the morning of the day he was absent. Thus, the school would have very little time in which to secure a substitute teacher who was specifically suited to teach the subject matter of the Respondent's classes. At the November 5, 1985 conference, Respondent was given specific instructions by Sturgeon to: Report any future absences to Assistant Principal Weiner personally and to discontinue calling the tape recording machine to report absences; Ensure that weekly lesson plans were available so that a substitute teacher would be able to continue with the lesson for that day; and Have on file with the school three days of "emergency lesson plans" dealing with general academic skills. On February 28, 1986, Sturgeon held another conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had been absent 5 times since the November 5, 1985 conference. On three of the days, Respondent did not call to report his intended absence. Sturgeon reiterated the same directives given Respondent during the November 5, 1985 conference. As of April 24, 1986, Respondent had been absent 58.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Because Respondent's absence pattern made it difficult to schedule a face to face conference, Sturgeon wrote a letter to Respondent expressing his concern over the high number of absences and the fact that from March 18, 1986 through April 24, 1986, there were 26 days during which the Respondent had not furnished lesson plans for his classes. Sturgeon again reiterated the directives of the November 5, 1985 conference. On May 12, 1986, a conference for the record was held with Respondent at the school board's Office of Professional Standards. Present at the conference were Assistant Principal Weiner, the Respondent, Dr. Gil (a coordinator in the office), and a union representative. The conference was held to discuss Respondent's performance assessment and future employment with the school board. The Respondent indicated his absences during the year were due to his grandmother's illness, the fact that he was not functioning well and the fact that he was taking medication for an upper respiratory illness. At the May 12, 1986 conference, the Respondent was directed to call Ms. Weinter directly to report any absences and to return his grade book to the school by May 13, 1986. Dr. Gil also determined that Respondent should be evaluated by a physician and an appointment was scheduled for the Respondent with Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist. The Respondent first saw Dr. Rousseau on May 15, 1986. On May 20, 1986, the Respondent had still not furnished the grade book to the school. Ms. Weiner directed Respondent, by way of a memorandum, to produce the grade book as previously requested. On May 30, 1986, Sturgeon completed an annual evaluation in reference to Respondent's teaching performance. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in the category of professional responsibility. On June 4, 1986, Sturgeon discussed with Respondent his most recent absences (May 29th to June 3rd) and the fact that he had not called Ms. Weiner to report them, had not provided lesson plans for two of the days and had still not provided the grade book to the school. The Respondent stated that he would comply with the directives in the future and provide his grade book to the school. Respondent was absent from June 6, 1986 until June 19, 1986. By letter dated June 11, 1986, Sturgeon requested that Respondent provide final examinations for his students and again directed that Respondent furnish the school with his grade book. On June 19, 1986, Sturgeon held a conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had not provided final examinations for his classes (one of the other teachers had to prepare the final exams), had not produced the grade book and had not provided lesson plans for use during his absences. The Respondent indicated to Sturgeon that on occasions, he attempted to contact Ms. Weiner but was unable to get through to her and at other times he forgot to contact her. The Respondent also informed Sturgeon that he was having a personal problem that he could not share with the school, and that the personal problem was having such an effect on him that he didn't feel that he could comply with the directives. On July 17, 1987, a conference was held at the school board's Office of Professional Standards, between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to review Respondent's performance over the previous school year. In Sturgeon's opinion, the Respondent's students had not been graded properly during nearly the entire year, final exams had to be administered which did not adequately assess the students' progress and the students had not reached the course objectives. At this time, the Respondent was a little more specific about the problem that he had mentioned to Sturgeon earlier and stated that he was having a mental problem and that he had experienced a series of traumatic experiences which had affected his ability to attend school. At the conclusion of the July 17, 1987 conference Sturgeon decided to recommend a short term of suspension, a medical examination and a period of controlled monitoring during the next school year. The recommendation was approved by the school board and Respondent was suspended for ten work days beginning the 1986-87 school year and was placed on probation for a 45 day monitoring period. The Respondent did not contest the suspension. 1986-87 School Year The Respondent returned to work from his suspension on September 16, 1987. Classes for the new school year had already commenced. Prior to returning to work, Respondent had gone to school and was given a teacher handbook in biology by Ms. Weiner. Respondent prepared lesson plans and tests based on the teacher handbook he had been given. When Respondent returned to school, he was given a new teacher handbook for biology. Respondent had to re-do all of his lesson plans and tests. In addition, he discovered that none of his classes had been issued textbooks. Respondent also received a folder filled with five classes worth of work for the proceeding 15 days which was assigned by the substitute teacher. On September 29, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class. Respondent was rated "acceptable" in five categories but "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This rating was based on the fact that there was no work done by the students contained in the student folders, his grade book contained only one entry grade per student for only one week and students were allowed to grade other students' essay-type examinations. Weiner gave Respondent a prescription for improving his deficiencies which included the directive that he conduct at least two formal assessments of student progress per week and maintain student folders to keep evaluative items. During October 1986, the Respondent was absent 15 days. Most of the absences were due to a severe intestinal flu which Respondent contracted. The Respondent failed to report his absences directly to Ms. Weiner as previously directed. On some occasions, the Respondent attempted to call Ms. Weiner, but could not get through to her on the telephone. When Respondent was unable to contact Ms. Weiner he would sometimes call the answer phone and leave a recorded message. On October 27, 1986, a conference for the record was held at the Office of Professional Standards between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Ms. Weiner's observation of Respondent, his continued failure to contact Ms. Weiner directly regarding absences and his failure to file emergency plans. On November 3, 1986, Sturgeon conducted an observation of the Respondent's classroom. Sturgeon rated the Respondent "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This unacceptable rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not have any student folders and had not assigned any homework. School policy required that teachers assigns homework at least twice a week. Respondent was also rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. On November 14, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class and rated him "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. The Respondent had no student folders, did not conduct at least two formative assessments of the students per week and there were no summative assessments of the student's progress. The Respondent admitted that he did not have formal folders and that his evaluation techniques were deficient. The Respondent stated that he was unable to employ the student assessment procedures recommended given by Ms. Weiner during the first few months of the 1986-87 school year because he was in the process of "catching up" after his return from suspension and was unable to do all of those things in such a short period of time. In addition, Respondent was hindered in his attempt to catch up because he was unable to have a lot of needed items copied because at times the machines were broken and at other times teachers with current items requiring reproduction were given priority. On November 19, 1986, Petitioner suspended Respondent from his position at Miami Edison Senior High School. Beginning in the 1984-85 school year and continuing through to the 1986-87 school year, Respondent suffered from a dysthymiac disorder referred to as neurotic depression. Respondent's condition was first diagnosed by Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist, on May 15, 1986. At the insistence of Dr. Gil, Respondent went to Dr. Rousseau's office for an examination. Dr. Rousseau was chosen from a list provided to Respondent by Dr. Gil. Dr. Gil personally made the appointment for Respondent to see Dr. Rousseau. Respondent at first did not realize or believe that he was suffering from a mental illness and initially resisted the treatment provided by Dr. Rousseau. However, Dr. Rousseau was able to establish a psychotherapeutic relationship with the Respondent after a short period of time. After the doctor-patient relationship was established, Respondent decided to continue seeing Dr. Rousseau and kept weekly appointments from June, 1986 until November, 1986. Respondent was treated with individual psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. In November of 1986, Respondent stopped seeing D. Rousseau because Respondent moved to Atlanta, Georgia, shortly after being suspended. Neurotic depression is a serious mental illness of a cyclical nature which may be physically disabling while the afflicted person is in a pathological state of depression. The symptoms of a neurotic depression include extreme sadness, apathy, lack of motivation, inability to concentrate, psychomotor retardation, insomnia and loss of appetite. Respondent's periods of pathological depression were characterized by feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and an apathy toward outside activities, including his employment. During Respondent's depressive states he would isolate himself at home, withdraw from all social contact, neglect his nutrition and hygiene and suffer insomnia. At times, Respondent would be unaware of the passage of time and would have crying spells. In his depressive condition, sometimes Respondent knew what he was required to do, such as calling in to report an absence, but because of his despair and dejected mood, was unable to motivate himself to do anything. Respondent's apathy and inability to attend to his necessary duties was a direct result of his neurotic depression. Due to the depressive symptomatology, a neurotically depressed person might fail to perform required duties for a number of reasons. As a result of an inability to concentrate, the depressed person may be unable to receive and assimilate instructions. The depressed person having a desire to complete a required duty may lack the physical capacity to perform because mentally he or she feels unable to do so. Further, because of an unconscious, passive- aggressive need for punishment, a depressed person may neglect to perform a required duty. The Respondent was examined by Dr. Albert Jaslow, a psychiatrist, on September 15, 1986 at the request of Dr. Gil of the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. Jaslow confirmed that Respondent was suffering from a mental illness and found that Respondent had made progress with his treatments from Dr. Rousseau. Dr. Jaslow noted that Respondent had reached a state of "relative adjustment" and had begun to realize that it would be necessary for him to be involved in a psychotherapeutic relationship in order to control the negative behavioral aspects of his periods of depression. Dr. Rousseau believes that Respondent responded well to treatment after an initial period of resistance and lack of insight (which is a part of the depressive symptomatology). Dr. Rousseau feels that the Respondent was getting better during the course of therapy but will need to continue taking his medication and receiving psychotherapy in order to fully complete the recovery process and control any recurring symptoms of depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be dismissed from employment; however, said dismissal shall be held in abeyance for 2 years from the date of the Final Order contingent on the following: Respondent's present suspension shall remain in effect until the commencement of the 1987-88 school year when Respondent shall return to work; Respondent shall continued treatment with Dr. Rosseau or another qualified psychiatrist of his choice; Respondent shall maintain acceptable performance evaluation reports during the school year, overall acceptable annual evaluations and be recommended for employment by his school principal at the end of the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years. The Office of Professional Standards, Dade County Board, shall monitor the Respondent's progress and fulfillment of the terms of the Final Order. If the Office of Professional Standards provides information by letter or motion to the school board that the Respondent has failed to meet any of the terms of this Order, the school board shall, if satisfied that the information is correct, immediately effectuate Respondent's dismissal by majority vote. If Respondent meets the requirements of the Final Order, the dismissal shall be remitted without further action. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4805 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. (No finding of fact 3) Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 31. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 8360 West Flagler Street Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33144 William duFresne, Esquire 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 331133 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Patrick Gray Division of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue - Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33136 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a 14 year old, seventh grade student at Nautilus Junior High School in Dade County, Florida, and all events occurred during the 1986-1987 school year. Mrs. Rita Gold was Respondent's fifth period English teacher. On September 10, 1986, she initiated a student case management referral form as a result of a series of confrontations with Respondent. From the very beginning of the 1986-1987 school year, Mrs. Gold had experienced Respondent's behavior in her class as both disruptive and disinterested, although he had been in attendance up to September 10, 1987. Initially in each school year, each student is given, and is required to complete the Florida State assessment tests. These are essentially for diagnosis of skills and placement in classes. Because Respondent informed Mrs. Gold that he had taken these in a concurrent class, she did not administer the assessment tests to him in her class. Thereafter, she discovered that he had lied and she must administer the tests to him during her class period. This took additional time when he and other students could better have been doing something else. When she presented the tests to him, Mrs. Gold observed Respondent filling out the answer blanks without taking the time to read the question sheet. She is certain of his persistent defiant attitude and refusal to obey her instructions in this regard because he continued to fill out the answer sheet without turning the pages of the skills questionnaire. On other occasions, Respondent made loud rebel outbursts in either English or Spanish of the type that follows: "I have to go to the bathroom!" "I want water!" "I don't understand this!" These outbursts were annoying to Mrs. Gold and disrupted normal classroom decorum. They are inappropriate for one of Respondent's age and Presumed maturity. Further disruptive and disrespectful behavior of Respondent that was noted by Mrs. Gold in her class are that: Respondent often spoke loudly when Mrs. Gold herself attempted to instruct the class; and on one occasion Respondent refused to come to her desk to get a book and announced to the rest of the class that she must bring it to him at his seat (Mrs. Gold has tried Respondent in several assigned seats and he has found fault with all of them). Respondent was chronically tardy; he refused to take home a deficiency notice to let his parents know he could fail the first 9 weeks' grading period but had time to improve; he did not read or write anything in class for the first full 9 weeks unless Mrs. Gold worked on a one-to-one basis with him; sometimes Respondent sat in class with his jacket over his head. Mrs. Gold feels there is no language barrier to Respondent's understanding what she wants. The parents gave her no report of medical disability which would account for Respondent's need for frequent fountain and bathroom requests. Mr. George A. Nunez is a physical education teacher at Nautilus Junior High School. He prepared a case management referral form on Respondent on October 2, 1986. This referral was a culmination of a series of incidents involving Respondent's chronic tardiness, repeated refusals to "dress out" and failure or refusal to remain in his assigned area of the grounds or gymnasium. All of these "acting out" mechanisms of Respondent were described by Mr. Nunez as an "I don't care attitude" and as "intolerable." Mr. Nunez is bilingual in English and Spanish and reports he has no communication problem with Respondent on the basis of language. The communication problem is the result of Respondent's disinterested and disrespectful attitude. All of Respondent's behavior problems were at least minimally disruptive to normal physical education class procedure and all attempts at teaching, but his wandering from the assigned area particularly disrupted other students' ability to learn in Mr. Nunez's class and in other physical education classes held simultaneously. Respondent was belligerent when replying to Mr. Nunez' remonstrances for not standing in the correct place. In the first grading Period of the 1986-1987 school year, Respondent had 8 absences and 3 tardies in physical education, which can only be described as chronic and excessive. He also had no "dress outs." Failure to "dress out," in the absence of some excuse such as extreme poverty, must be presumed to be willfully disobedient and defiant. Respondent did not fulfill his detentions assigned by Mr. Nunez as a discipline measure and repeated his pattern of chronic tardiness and absences in the second grading period, which absences and tardies were recorded by Mr. Nunez on behalf of another teacher who had been assigned Respondent. Stanton Bronstein is a teacher and administrative assistant at Nautilus Junior High School. On September 17, 1986, Mr. Bronstein discovered Respondent in the hallway during second period without a valid reason. He concluded Respondent was "cutting" class when Respondent provided no valid reason for being out of class. On October 3, 1986, Bronstein observed Respondent enter the hallway at approximately 12:30 p.m. Respondent had no satisfactory explanation for why he was out of class or of what he had been doing, and Bronstein concluded Respondent had cut his first through third period classes. Each of these incidents resulted in student case management referrals. On October 6, 1986, Bronstein initiated another student case management referral upon reports of classroom disruption and cutting made by a teacher, Mrs. O'Dell, who did not testify. No admission was obtained by Bronstein from Respondent on this occasion. The underlying facts alleged in the report originating with Mrs. O'Dell are therefore Uncorroborated hearsay, however the case management report of that date is accepted to show that Bronstein contacted Respondent's parents on that occasion and ordered outdoor suspension for Respondent. As of October 21, 1986, Respondent bad been absent from school a total of 10 whole days without any written parental excuse. When he returned on October 21, 1986, he was tardy and was referred to Mr. Bronstein who counseled with Respondent, received no acceptable excuse from him, and initiated a case management referral resulting in indoor suspension with a letter informing Respondent's mother of the suspension. After referrals for incidents on October 23, 1986 and October 31, 1986, further disciplinary measures were taken against Respondent, including a conference with Bronstein, the parents, an interpreter, and the principal, Dr. Smith, present. A series of detentions thereafter were not fulfilled by Respondent in defiance of school authority, despite several rearrangements of the times for the detentions so as to accommodate Respondent's schedule and requests. This resulted in further conferences between the school administrators and the parents with a final outdoor suspension. Dr. Paul Smith, Assistant Principal at Nautilus Junior High School, recounted a lengthy litany of referrals of Respondent by various teachers, a history of counseling sessions, Parental contacts, detentions, and suspensions which had failed to modify Respondent's disruptive, unsuccessful, and disinterested behavior. Respondent's grades for the first grading period of the 1986-1987 school year were straight "Fs" (failures). Respondent was frequently seen by Dr. Smith leaving school after he had once arrived. No medical condition was made known to Dr. Smith which would account for Respondent's misbehavior. Respondent has been evaluated by the child study team and Dr. Smith concurs in their analysis that it is in Respondent's best interest that he be referred to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North, where a highly structured alternative education program with a low Student-to-teacher ratio can control him Sufficiently to educate him. Bronstein concurs in this assessment. Both feel all that can be done in the regular school setting has been done for Respondent. At hearing, the mother, Mrs. Gonzalez, asked a number of questions which assumed that notes had been set to school asking that Respondent be given extra opportunities to get water because of excessive thirst, but no school personnel bad ever received any such notes. Despite numerous parent-school conferences, no school Personnel could remember this issue being raised Previously. By her questions, Mrs. Gonzalez also Suggested that Respondent had no gym clothes. However, Mrs. Gonzalez offered no oral testimony and no documentary evidence to support either premise and the parents' Posthearing submittal does not raise these defenses. The undersigned ordered the Respondent's posthearing proposal which was submitted in Spanish to be translated into English and thereafter considered it. The proposal only complains about the alternative educational Placement upon grounds of excessive distance of Jan Mann Opportunity School-North from the Respondent's home and states the parents will place him in a private school. Since Respondent has not already been withdrawn from the Dade County Public School System, the latter statement cannot be accepted as dispositive of all disputed issues of material fact, as it might be under other circumstances. As a whole, the Respondent's Posthearing Proposal is rejected as irrelevant, not dispositive of the issues at bar.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter its Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to the school system's opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North until such time as an assessment shows that Respondent can be returned to the regular school system. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire 8360 West Flagler Street Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33144 Norma Gonzalez 657 Lennox Avenue, Unit No. 1 Miami Beach, Florida 33139
