The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant Principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as Principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an Intern Principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time Intern Principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and (5) accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, a fact which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract. Employment Requiring a Teaching Certificate At the time of hearing, Ms. Maynard had not found employment requiring a teaching certificate since being suspended, without pay and benefits, by the School Board on or about March 18, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed Counts 2 (only as to gross immorality), 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16; Dismissing Counts 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17; and Suspending Doreen Maynard's educator's certificate for three years, with denial of an application for an educator's certificate for the three-year period, and, after completion of the suspension, placing her on probation for one year under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commissioner of Education. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the Respondent's Petition dated June 11, 2008, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duties of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2008).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Scott has been employed as a teacher with the School Board since 1986. She is a member of the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association and is subject to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association ("Collective Bargaining Agreement"). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Scott taught business classes at Palm Beach Central High School ("Palm Beach Central"). In 2006, Ms. Scott was charged with shutting a student into a windowless, unventilated closet and leaving him there "for a time estimated to be between ten (10) minutes by you and fifty (50) minutes by the student and other witnesses."2 The superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and her employment terminated. The termination was subsequently rescinded, and Ms. Scott's discipline for this incident was reduced to a 38-day suspension without pay. During fourth period on February 1, 2008, Ms. Scott was teaching a course in computing for colleges and careers. While she was taking attendance, several students were causing their computers to "beep." As a result, Ms. Scott sent a few students outside the classroom, into the hallway. She sent another student to the storage room that connected her classroom to the classroom next to hers and told the student to step inside and shut the door. The student was a male who was 17 years of age at the time of the final hearing. The storage room was approximately 10 feet wide and 15 feel long. The student remained in the storage room for approximately 10 minutes, during which time the lights in the storage room were off. The storage room had two doors, neither of which had windows, and Ms. Scott could not see the student while he was in the storage room. After approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott opened the storage room door and told the student he could leave the storage room.3 The student did not consider his being sent into the dark storage room a "big deal," and he did not report the incident to his parents, to another teacher, or to the school administration.4 On February 15, 2008, a student reported the incident to a teacher, who reported it to an assistant principal, who reported it to another assistant principal, who reported it to the principal, Burley Mondy. Mr. Mondy reported the matter to the School Board police and requested that a formal investigation be initiated. Mr. Mondy also removed Ms. Scott from the Palm Beach Central campus on February 15, 2008, and she was given an alternate assignment in the Palm Beach County School District's office. After the investigation was completed, the matter was subject to an administrative review; a pre-disciplinary meeting was held with Ms. Scott in attendance; and the matter was reviewed by the School Board's Employee Investigation Committee. Based upon the recommendation of the Employee Investigation Committee, the superintendent of schools recommended to the School Board that Ms. Scott be suspended without pay and that proceedings be initiated to terminate her employment. The School Board approved this recommendation at its June 4, 2008, meeting. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish that, by sending a student into a dark storage room for approximately 10 minutes, Ms. Scott exercised extremely poor professional judgment and that her actions posed a potential risk to the student's physical and mental health and safety. The School Board failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's sending several students into the hall during class constituted poor professional judgment or posed a potential risk to the students' physical and mental health and safety. The School Board also failed to present any evidence to establish that Ms. Scott's effectiveness in the school system was impaired by the incident at issue, and it is not reasonable to infer from Ms. Scott's conduct that her effectiveness was impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Petition filed against Rutha Scott, immediately reinstating her, and awarding her back pay for the period of her suspension, as provided in Section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 16th day of February, 2009.
The Issue The basic issues in these consolidated cases are whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a school teacher in the Broward County School District and whether his Florida teaching certificate should be disciplined based upon substantially similar charges filed by the respective Petitioners. Petitioners allege that the Respondent conducted himself improperly on three separate occasions with three different female students. The Petitioner School Board of Broward County seeks the Respondent's dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) immorality, (b) misconduct in office, and moral turpitude. The Petitioner Betty Castor seeks to discipline the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) gross immoral-ity or an act involving moral turpitude, (b) personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, and (c) violations of the code of conduct for educators in the State of Florida. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by all parties The Respondent, Wayne N. Bailey, holds Florida teaching certificate 478398, covering the areas of Science, Biology, and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 1995. At all times pertinent to these consolidated cases, the Respondent was employed as a teacher and coach at South Plantation High School in the Broward County School District, and was so employed since 1980. The Respondent holds a continuing contract as a classroom teacher. Virgil L. Morgan, is the Superintendent of Schools for Broward County, Florida. Facts established at the hearing Facts regarding the student J.F. 1/ During the 1987-1988 school year, a female student named J.F. was a student in the fifth period Biology class taught by the Respondent. J.F. was a student in that class for the entire school year. During the first half of the school year she sat in the front of the classroom. Sometime during the 1987-88 school year, J.F. reported to the school authorities that the Respondent had passed a note to her in class containing words to the effect that the Respondent thought she was a bright girl, that he wanted to get to know her better, and requesting her telephone number. The record in this case lacks persuasive evidence that the incident reported by J.F. actually occurred. 2/ Facts Regarding the Student C.P.C. 3/ During the first half of the 1987-88 school year, a female student named C.P.C. was a student in the second period Biology class taught by the Respondent. One evening after a football game at South Plantation High School, C.P.C. was sent to get some ice from a locked concession stand. When she got to the concession stand, she saw the Respondent holding something that she believed contained beer. 4/ On several occasions thereafter, C.P.C. joked with the Respondent to the effect that she had seen him with beer in the concession stand. Towards the end of the first semester of the 1987-88 school year, in conjunction with seeking a transfer out of the Respondent's class, C.P.C. reported that the Respondent had offered to provide her with beer and had invited her to drink beer with him at his house. The record in this case lacks persuasive evidence that the offer and invitation reported by C.P.C. actually occurred. 5/ Facts Regarding the Student L.H. 6/ During the 1989-1990 school year, a female student named L.H. was a student at South Plantation High School. During that school year, L.H. was in the twelfth grade. She was never a student in any class taught by the Respondent, and prior to the incident described below she had had very little contact with the Respondent. During the 1989-90 school year, L.H. was a member of the girl's varsity basketball team. The incident described below occurred on an afternoon in early January (probably January 3) of 1990, prior to a home basketball game that was played on the campus of South Plantation High School. Because there was a basketball game later that day, on the day in question L.H. remained on the school grounds when classes were over at 2:35 p.m. Two other students stayed on the campus with her, D.G. 7/ and S.M. 8/ Sometime after 3:00 p.m., but before 4:00 p.m., L.H. wanted to go to the coaches' office inside the gymnasium in order to get some fruit from her gym bag. She and her two student companions went to the gymnasium and found that it was locked. The three students began to knock on the door. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent came to the door and asked why the students wanted to come into the gymnasium. After L.H. explained what she wanted, the Respondent allowed her to enter and then closed the gymnasium door, leaving the other two students outside the gymnasium door. Again, the gymnasium door was locked. L.H. entered the coaches' office inside the gymnasium and proceeded to retrieve her gym bag. The Respondent followed her into the coaches' office and closed the door to the office behind him. Thereupon, the Respondent approached L.H., began trying to fondle her body, began kissing her, and while doing so succeeded in partially unbuttoning the top of L.H.'s jump suit and pulling it down over her shoulder. The Respondent then lifted L.H.'s bra, exposing her breast, whereupon he rubbed her breast with his hands and then placed his mouth on her breast and sucked hard and/or bit on her breast. During the course of this activity the Respondent also unzipped his pants, removed his penis from his pants, and then pushed one of L.H.'s hands until it was in contact with his penis. The Respondent also attempted to get L.H. to lie down on a desk in the coaches' office. During the course of the activities described immediately above, the Respondent was speaking to L.H. encouraging her to consent to sexual intercourse, while she was asking him to stop and struggling to free herself from his clutches. Shortly after the commencement of the activities described above, the two students who had remained outside began to knock loudly on the locked gymnasium door. Shortly after the knocking began, the Respondent released L.H., zipped up his pants, sat down, and pretended to be talking on the telephone. He then said to L.H., "this will be our secret, just between me and you." As soon as the Respondent released her, L.H. rearranged her clothes, left the coaches' office, and then left the gymnasium. When she met D.G. and S.M. outside the gymnasium, L.H.'s hair was messed up and it appeared to both D.G. and S.M. that something was bothering L.H. D.G. proceeded to ask L.H. several times what was bothering her. Because she was embarrassed, frightened, and confused, L.H. did not tell D.G. or S.M. what had happened until sometime later. Later that same evening, L.H. called D.G. on the telephone and told him in detail what the Respondent had done to her in the coaches' office. L.H. did not report the Respondent's conduct to school authorities until February 28, 1990, during the course of an interview by her school guidance counsellor. Her delay in reporting the matter to school authorities was due to her embarrassment and to her concern that the school authorities might not believe her word over that of a teacher. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Broward County School Board has been seriously diminished by the incident involving L.H.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that final orders to the following effect be entered in these cases: In Case No. 90-3615, a final order should be entered concluding that the Respondent is guilty of "immorality" and "misconduct in office" within the meaning of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and terminating the Respondent's employment with the Broward County School Board. In Case No. 90-6154, a final order should be entered concluding that the Respondent is guilty of "gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude," of conduct "which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board," and of conduct violating paragraphs (a) and (e) of subsection (3) of Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, within the meaning of Section 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes, and permanently revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of December 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Debra Turnbull’s (“Ms. Turnbull” or “Respondent”), employment with Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (“School Board” or “Petitioner”), as an elementary teacher, should be terminated, based upon the statements of the nature of the controversy set forth in the Joint Second Amended Pre-hearing Stipulation filed by the parties.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained in the proper method of interacting with co-workers and students, exercising best professional judgment, and following rules, policies, and directives. At all times relevant, Respondent was employed with Petitioner as a teacher at Forest Hill and had been assigned there for approximately two years, initially serving as a second-grade, dual language teacher. At all times relevant, Respondent’s employment was governed by the CBA between the District and the Classroom Teachers Association, School Board policies, and Florida law. Respondent was notified, by a Notice of Recommendation for Termination of Employment, dated and acknowledged by her on October 29, 2019, that she was being recommended for a 15-day suspension and subsequent termination due to: (1) Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment; (2) Gross Insubordination; and (3) Continued Failure to Follow Policy/Rule or Directive, when she screamed and yelled at her students. An Administrative Complaint, detailing the charges, was served on Respondent, through her attorney, on December 9, 2019. A few months after being assigned to the dual language class, Respondent was moved to a position in the Forest Hill computer lab, which was part of the fine arts rotation for students. As a media specialist, Ms. Turnbull was responsible for checking library books in and out; helping children find books; reading aloud with children; helping students with independent reading; developing lessons to encourage the students to interact with media other than books; and working in a partnership with the home room teachers to support them in special projects and research. The students’ homeroom teacher is not present during the media center visit by that teacher’s students, and routinely drops the students off at the beginning of the 30-minute time block, returning to pick them up at the conclusion of the visit. On or about April 12, 2019, Ms. Turnbull was working on a project with third and fourth-grade classes. She had been given broad discretion in developing a project for the third and fourth graders to celebrate the Everglades. The project was designed to have the children investigate and do research on various aspects of the Everglades, then produce a project to demonstrate what was learned. Ms. Turnbull decided to have each child do some individual research on a topic related to the Everglades, followed by their presenting their findings in a form with which they were comfortable. She gathered numerous books about the Everglades, a video or a DVD to play about the Everglades, and expected that the project would ultimately end up in an Everglades museum that would be displayed in the media center for the rest of the school’s students to visit and learn about the Everglades. She imposed a deadline on the students to have the project completed within three class sessions. In administering the Everglades project, Ms. Turnbull’s intent was that all of the children would research a topic in which they had a true interest. She gave an initial class in how to research and suggested some ideas for project topics. She and the students of each class brainstormed a list of approximately 15 topics that interested the children, which were placed on the board for all the children to see. Ms. Turnbull explained to the students that she would go around the room, so that each student could select the topic on which he or she would like to work, but that no more than four students in each class could work on a single topic, in order to enhance the learning experience for all by having more topics covered. Ms. Turnbull tallied the number of students who selected each topic, and, once a topic was chosen by four students, subsequent choosing students were redirected and limited to the other topics, which were ample for the class sizes. Once the topics were selected and assigned, the classes brainstormed different types of project presentations which could be used. Students were able to produce a diorama, an advertising poster, a research report, or other methods of presenting their projects. Ms. Turnbull used the same rule, that once four students selected a particular method of presentation, that mode would be closed. Similar to the selection of topics, Ms. Turnbull tallied the number of students who selected each presentation method, and, once a mode was chosen by four students, subsequent choosing students were redirected to other choices. On April 12, 2019, Ms. Turnbull met with the students from Ms. Goodson’s third-grade homeroom class, who were dropped off at the media center for their second project session. As they arrived, Ms. Turnbull directed the students to sit at the media center tables, where she had a whiteboard set up, and she and the students began to interact and list the various Everglades topics which interested them. On that day, the students had recently returned from spring break. Ms. Turnbull explained that all teachers know that, after spring break, students are looking towards the end of the school year and are not always focused. She felt that, as sometimes happens, “they were just not with me that day.” They were somewhat uncooperative and talking to each other, rather than listening to what she was saying. Ms. Turnbull had never had a particular problem with that class. It was one of the classes that she looked forward to seeing because they “had a good time together and got things accomplished.” However, on that day, the students were not following the directions she was giving them with respect to choosing the topic for their projects and then choosing their mode of presentation for the topic. Ms. Turnbull gave Ms. Goodson’s students specific directions that no more than four people could choose the same project and that, once there were four students who had selected a particular topic or project, that topic or project was no longer in play, and the next students who chose had to select something else. The students were not paying attention, and, when somebody tried to be the fifth or sixth person to choose the same topic, Ms. Turnbull would again tell the selecting student that there could be no more than four in a grouping and pointed to the board where the students could see four tally marks next to that topic. She would explain that the topic had closed and that something else had to be chosen. Soon thereafter, it would happen again with another student. When she had gone through the entire class, and when the tally marks were totaled, the numbers did not match, meaning that some students had not even made their selections. Gregory York, the IT person assigned to Forest Hill since 2004 or 2005, is responsible for fixing all technical problems at the school. Mr. York testified that he was in the media center on April 12, 2019, to discuss a repair issue with Respondent when he heard her yelling and screaming at a student who had raised her hand. Mr. York further testified that he and Ms. Turnbull “got into a little shouting match as well [when he explained why he could not fix her VCR], so [he] just left.” He described Respondent’s tone of voice as a “very high-pitched tone. Aggravated. … Loud and upset.” He specifically recalled a particular incident with one student as follows: But the one that I kind of recall was with that one particular student when direction was given to raise their hand and when she raised the hand, I guess the answer wasn’t good enough and it just got … it wasn’t just -- I don’t know, I don’t know what word to use, but it was just … I just felt like the student was just following directions and it seemed like she just got in trouble for following directions, from me, that’s all I’m saying. Mr. York admitted, on cross-examination, that “at the beginning, I don’t recall the whole conversation because I was too focusing [sic] with the IT person and then as I -- as we -- as I settled down, that’s when I can pretty much hear -- not hear, but I can see the environment and the tone has changed and that’s what I remember.” He did not remember what was being said when he claimed that the tone changed. Mr. York also remembered, on April 12, 2019, that a student raised her hand to ask a question. He did not recall the entire conversation, but said “it was like an upset conversation and everything and the student just wanted to ask the question and couldn’t answer it or whatever... it was just... just the whole ordeal was just loud.” Mr. York said that, after getting yelled at, “to me for following directions, she did not see -- she seemed a little hurt about it or whatever.” He claimed to “just remember the incident with the one student in particular, with the student raising their hand and, you know, she was just... It was an incident of her yelling at the kid and, you know, the kid got sad and everything like that.” Although he did not recall in any detail what was said or being done, Mr. York claimed “I just felt like the student was just following directions and it seemed like she just got in trouble for following directions from me, that’s all I’m saying.” He did not know why the student raised her hand or what she said. On cross-examination, Mr. York admitted that the hand raising “had something to do with voting, and, like I said, I heard that part and I remember the student just following direction, raising their hand and -- ... raising their hand to speak or maybe vote. I remember that part, the students raised their hand and she asked the student go ahead. And when she said what she had to say, it just went bad after that.” He repeated that he was within ten feet of Ms. Turnbull when this exchange took place, but did not recall whether Ms. Turnbull was explaining that there were already too many students who had made the particular selection. Also on cross-examination, after having his memory refreshed with his prior written statement and deposition testimony, Mr. York admitted that while he did not recall what Ms. Turnbull was “yelling” at the kids, he recalled her yelling or screaming at Assistant Principal Higgins about books. Ms. Turnbull testified that she was not yelling at the children. She admitted that the situation was getting a bit annoying and that, as time went by, and the same situation kept occurring over and over, she became what she termed, “a little bit more stern.” On cross-examination, Ms. Turnbull conceded that she has a loud voice and that sometimes people misinterpret a loud voice or enthusiasm as raising her voice. She explained that she was “a New Yorker,” having a style and expressing herself in a way that some consider “loud, animated, excited and boisterous.” Because the media center door is kept locked, teachers returning for their students typically knock on the door. Ms. Goodson did not knock on the door, but was somehow let into the media center, although she did not immediately ask for her students to leave the media center while Ms. Turnbull continued to work with them. Ms. Turnbull could not recall how long Ms. Goodson observed her students in the media center. Ms. Goodson recalled and estimated being in the media center for about 30 minutes. Ms. Goodson waited in the media center as Ms. Turnbull continued beyond the allotted class time with her students. Eventually, Ms. Goodson indicated that she had to return to her classroom with her students. There was a brief discussion between Ms. Turnbull and Ms. Goodson as the class was leaving. Ms. Turnbull asked Ms. Goodson if she would spend time in her classroom having the students choose topics and methods of presentation, as she had observed that those matters were not completed in the media center that day. Ms. Goodson, she testified, responded that “they are a low class.” Ms. Turnbull assumed Ms. Goodson was referring to academic ability, and responded that, even if they are low, this was not an academic exercise, but was rather a situation of making a choice and following directions. Neither teacher was yelling; instead, they were speaking quietly, because the children were in close proximity to them. Ms. Goodson had never discussed her students’ academic level with Ms. Turnbull until that day. Ms. Turnbull never thought of the class as a “low class.” She would have approached the lesson differently had Ms. Goodson advised that she believed her class was incapable of following two-step or three-step directions. Ms. Turnbull felt that Ms. Goodson spoke about her students as a “low class” in an effort to explain or excuse their behavior that day. When asked about the allegation that she yelled at Mr. Higgins when he was in the media center while Ms. Goodson and her class were present that same day, Ms. Turnbull testified that, since he was an assistant principal, she considered Mr. Higgins to be her boss. She would never yell at him, she testified. Ms. Turnbull felt that Mr. Higgins was someone to whom she could talk, and had she thought that he did something wrong with a book, she would have spoken with him. She did not recall any interaction with Mr. Higgins that day, or even that Mr. Higgins was in the room. In her deposition testimony, Ms. Goodson recalled that, at some point, Mr. Higgins was in the media center. She recalled Ms. Turnbull “went off for a couple minutes on him, saying next time do this, this and this. That’s not how we do it here, something like that.” Mr. Higgins testified during Ms. Turnbull’s case. He knows Ms. Turnbull and was familiar with this case. Mr. Higgins was aware that he had been identified as having been present in the media center during the alleged incident of April 12, 2019. He testified that he did not recall any incident that took place with Ms. Turnbull. He provided a statement during the investigation at a time shortly after the alleged incident wherein he stated that he did not hear anything from Ms. Turnbull on that date. He recalled being asked by Mr. York to assist with repairing the VCR. Mr. Higgins testified that Ms. Turnbull did not yell at him. Mr. Higgins said that he was not the type of person who would accept being yelled at without taking some action since he is the assistant principal and Ms. Turnbull is a media specialist. Mr. Higgins testified that he “returned the book, kind of finished the tech issue with work and walked out.” Mr. Higgins did not witness any yelling, screaming, or anything like that. Similarly, Ms. Turnbull did not recall any interaction with Mr. York on that day, although she recalled that some time before that day she had asked Mr. York to remove a cassette that had gotten stuck in her VCR. She conceded that, although she did not recall him being there, he could have been in the media center on that date. Ms. Turnbull recalled the student Mr. York mentioned in his testimony, although she did not recall her name. The student had a physical exceptionality and used an assistive device to walk. Ms. Turnbull was not aware of the student having any intellectual exceptionality. Like Mr. York, she did not observe the student crying at any point, and testified that she did not observe her upset or with a quivering lip. Ms. Turnbull did not intend to disparage or embarrass the student. Scott McNichols is the principal at Forest Hill. He testified that homeroom teacher Ms. Goodson reported an incident with Ms. Turnbull. Mr. McNichols had Ms. Goodson complete a witness statement. When Ms. Goodson provided the statement, Mr. McNichols contacted the school district labor relations department. Mr. McNichols spoke to no other witnesses about the matter. In general, classes at Forest Hill were heterogeneous with all different kinds of students mixed together. Ms. Goodson’s class was not an exceptional student education (“ESE”) class. She had some students with Individual Education Plans “(IEPs”), and some without. The level of the students in Ms. Goodson’s class was not advertised to the public. A teacher on the art wheel would only know whether Ms. Goodson’s class had ESE students if the ESE contact informed her. Mr. McNichols had no way to know whether the ESE contact informed a teacher as to the existence and nature of a student’s IEP. Ms. Turnbull specifically testified that the ESE contact never informed her of such matters concerning Ms. Goodson’s class. Ms. Vicki Evans-Paré is the director of Employment and Labor Relations for the District. She has held that position for a little over two years and is responsible for handling the CBA and employee discipline, along with other duties. With regard to employee discipline, it is her office that investigates and maintains discipline files. After consultation with the Superintendent regarding his decision as to employee discipline, her office is responsible for drafting the notice of recommendation to the employee that the Superintendent signs. With regard to Respondent’s case, Ms. Evans-Paré testified that she is familiar with Ms. Turnbull’s discipline file. As a records custodian for Petitioner, she provided clear and uncontroverted testimony with regard to the CBA’s provisions for progressive discipline and skipping steps when there is either an immediate danger to the health, safety, and welfare of students or district and/or a flagrant and purposeful violation of the rules. As the director, she makes recommendations regarding discipline to the Superintendent, and she found that Ms. Turnbull had a history of making inappropriate comments to students and acting inappropriately and had previously been given warnings and reprimands; such that, skipping steps, to suspension, was warranted given that prior discipline was not having an effect at all on Respondent’s behavior. Ms. Evans-Paré further testified as to the past practice under the CBA relating to the use of a verbal reprimand with written notation relative to notice of previously given directives. The CBA refers to the personnel file in Article II, Section B, under Rights and Responsibilities. In that provision, it states that “no item can be used to the detriment of an employee unless it is a part of his/her personnel file.” The two verbal reprimands that were offered into evidence were not being offered for progressive discipline purposes, but as allowed under Article II, Section M - Discipline of Employees, as follows: 5. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee’s personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited. * * * Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District, a District employee, and/or a child/children or the actions/inactions of the employee clearly constitute flagrant or purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand with a Written Notation - Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee’s personnel file maintained at the District headquarters, but will be placed in a file at the school/department and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve (12) months of the action/inaction of the employee which led to the notation. The written notification shall be maintained at the school site/department pursuant to the District’s Records Retention Schedule. Under the discipline section, the verbal reprimands are certainly a matter of record that is permitted to be cited to, and the phrase “to the detriment of the employee” that is in the section regarding the personnel file, was not included. The terms in the CBA regarding the verbal reprimand and personnel file are not ambiguous. Therefore, they must be given their ordinary meaning. Rivercrest Cmty. Ass’n, Inc. v. Am. Homes 4 Rent Props. One, LLC, 298 So. 3d 106, 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Respondent acknowledged that she was trained in the Code of Ethics and that she had received previous directives regarding appropriate interaction with students, failure to exercise best professional judgment, and insubordination. She further acknowledged that she had received the allegations against her in the pre-determination notice and packet. Respondent has a prior disciplinary history. Respondent received a Written Reprimand on or about February 24, 2004, while working at Addison Mizner Elementary School, for “actions that violated the Code of Ethics, Sections 2(a) and (e).” At the time, Respondent inappropriately addressed five students (three ESE students, one “504” student, and a “regular” education student) when she “withheld the Valentine’s Day classroom party” for “talking,” for “forgetting materials,” and for “being off task.” Respondent received a Written Reprimand on or about June 5, 2014, from the Office of Professional Standards at the District for violations of School Board policies: 5.002, Prohibition of Bullying and Harassment; 3.02, Code of Ethics; 3.01, Commitment to the Student, Principle I; and 1.013, Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; as well as Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in Florida, and 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. At the time, Respondent “allowed the students to publicly assess their peers, deciding which students were creating a distraction, and which students were ‘hard-working.’” Respondent also “segregated’’ the students by sitting the “distracting” students in the back and also disparaging a student in front of the class ‘‘by suggesting that he should have learned certain skills when he was in kindergarten.” Respondent received a Written Reprimand on or about May 21, 2018, from the Office of Professional Standards at the District for “[failing] to exercise [her] best professional judgment, ethical misconduct, inappropriate interaction with students, and for failure to follow policy, rule, or directive.” At the time, Ms. Turnbull said “shut up” and “stupid” during work hours, and the students said they perceived it as being directed at them. Later on, during the Pre-Determination Meeting (PDM), Ms. Turnbull stated, “The District can go to hell,” while school administration recalled her saying “You go to hell.” Respondent received a Verbal Reprimand (Written Notation) on or about April 17, 2019, while working at Forest Hill, for her unprofessional conduct towards employees during duty hours and for failing to exercise her best professional judgment. At the time, an employee borrowed a Sharpie from Ms. Turnbull’s desk. Respondent reacted by addressing the employee “in a rude and confrontational manner” in the presence of “students and volunteers.” Later, Respondent “went after [the employee] again, continued berating her (disrespecting the personal space between both of [them]), and even mocked her.” The District’s process for determining the discipline to be imposed on Ms. Turnbull in this matter went through Ms. Evans-Paré, the director of Employee and Labor Relations for the District. She testified about the practices of her department and that Ms. Turnbull had received letters and notices of hearing, reassignments within the District, and a copy of the investigative report, which was prepared by another individual, who did not testify in the case. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that progressive discipline begins with a Verbal Reprimand with Written Notation for teachers. It then goes to Written Reprimand, suspension of any number of days, and then to termination. She believes that the employer can “jump steps” and that the CBA permitted that practice when there was “a real and immediate danger to the District, to students, to faculty, to adults, and then also if it’s a flagrant and purposeful violation of the rules.” She explained that steps were skipped in this case because of the nature of the allegation. Additionally, that it was a flagrant and purposeful violation. This is something that has been going on for years with making inappropriate comments to students, acting inappropriately. So[,] at a certain point you just move forward and progressive discipline, you can jump steps because the warnings, the other reprimands, they weren’t having any effect at all. And it was continually doing harm to students. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that the purpose of progressive discipline, and all the notices referenced in her testimony, is to ensure that the employee be told that an action is wrong and that the employee is not to repeat it, and to provide the opportunity to adjust his or her behavior accordingly. She admitted that its purpose was to give a person the opportunity to be advised that particular conduct was wrong and, therefore, be able to avoid it in the future. In her testimony, Ms. Evans-Paré stated that the recommendation of District administrators that went to the School Board in this case was for termination. She recommended termination, based on the fact that statements made by Respondent were to disabled ESE students, and what she termed the number of statements calling them “stupid” and “slow.” Ms. Evans-Paré claimed that Ms. Turnbull “did them over and over. Enough is enough.” Notwithstanding that testimony, Ms. Evans-Paré testified that only the School Board can suspend a teacher without pay. On cross-examination, she made it clear that pursuant to Florida Statutes, the ultimate decision maker concerning employee discipline, even beyond herself, is the Superintendent, and then, beyond him, the School Board. She did not testify as to any formal action taken by the School Board in this case and did not reference or provide any document which set forth any action by the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order finding that “just cause” exists to discipline Ms. Turnbull, by upholding her prior suspension, without pay, for 15-days, and restoring all benefits and back pay that have been lost/withheld since November 21, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2021. Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire V. Danielle Williams, Esquire School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D., Superintendent School District of Palm Beach County 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Moses Green, holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 232099, Graduate, Rank II. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega School during the 1976-1977 school year. Thereafter he was reassigned as one of three deans of students at Pinellas Park High School, and he served in this capacity during the 1978-1979 school year. Moses Green has been in the field of education since his graduation from Florida A & M University more than 21 years ago. After teaching several years in South Carolina and Georgia he came to Boca Ciega High School in Pinellas County in 1964 where he started as a teacher. He served as dean of students at Boca Ciega High School from 1974 until 1977 when he was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as a dean of students. In October 1976 enroute from his home to school in a vehicle described both as a van and a motor home, Respondent stopped to give a ride to Jacqueline Blackshear and Stephanie Bellamy, two ninth grade students at Boca Ciega High School. When they entered the van Jackie sat on the housing covering the engine between the two front seats facing the rear of the van and Stephanie sat in the front right-hand passenger's seat. Enroute to school Respondent commented that Jackie was growing up and placed his hand on the inside of Jackie's thigh. At the time, Jackie was enroute to school for cheerleader practice and was wearing shorts. Jackie looked and moved towards Stephanie and Respondent removed his hand. Before arriving at school Respondent again placed his hand on Jackie's thigh and removed it when she moved. Upon arrival at school Respondent told Stephanie to get out as he wanted to talk to Jackie. When Stephanie left the van, Respondent was standing facing Jackie whose back was to the closed door. Respondent grabbed Jackie and attempted to kiss her. She pushed away, opened the door and left the van. When she left the van, Jackie was upset and Stephanie suggested she tell her parent. Near noontime Jackiie went to Gail Weston, a physical education teacher at Boca Ciega High School and told her about the incident in Respondent's van. Stephanie accompanied Jackie on this visit. Ms. Weston described Jackie as nervous and upset. After a few minutes of conversation Ms. Weston realized that it was not something she could handle and she told Jackie and Stephanie that they needed to tell their story at the Dean's office and she took them to Jean Johnson, a dean of students at Boca Ciega High School. There both girls told their story to Ms. Johnson who prepared a statement for them to sign. The story repeated to Ms. Johnson was essentially the same told to Ms. Weston. After typing up their statements, Ms. Johnson told Mr. Demps, the principal. He had the girls brought to him, where the story was again repeated. Demps called Respondent in and confronted him with the story. He also advised his area superintendent and the director of personnel, who investigated the allegations made by these two girls. Demps also arranged for a meeting with Jackie's and Stephanie's parents the following day. Following the investigation, Green, on October 19, 1976 was issued a letter of reprimand (Exhibit 1) for his role in the events that had come to the school's attention regarding the two girls noted above and warned that a recurrence of such conduct would result in dismissal. By letter dated 9 November 1976 Respondent was sent another letter (Exhibit 2) regarding a reported and inappropriate remark made by Green to another female student, which Respondent had denied, and the letter suggested Respondent and the girl take lie detector tests. By letter dated December 29, 1976 (Exhibit 3) the Superintendent of Schools advised Respondent that the results of the polygraph test he had voluntarily taken indicated his answers were deceptive, while the girl's polygraph test indicated her responses were honest. Respondent was placed on probation for the remainder of the 1976-1977 school year and for all of the 1977-1978 school year. Although his principal at Boca Ciega High School, Mr. Demps, considered Respondent's effectiveness at Boca Ciega High School seriously impaired by the notoriety given to the events involving Respondent in 1976, he remained at Boca Ciega High School for the remainder of that school year. For the school year 1977-1978 Respondent was transferred to Pinellas Park High School as dean of students. Upon his transfer to Pinellas Park High School, Demps gave Respondent a good evaluation report. During Respondent's first year at Pinellas Park High School, no incidents were reported to form the basis of any of the charges here considered. This school year 1977-1978 included the probation period set by Exhibit 3. The school year 1978-1979, while Respondent was dean of students at Pinellas Park High School, produced the majority of complaints and testimony at this hearing regarding improper comments made to female students by Respondent, improper contact of a sexual nature with female students by Respondent, and corroboration of this testimony by other witnesses. Ten female students who attended Pinellas Park High School during school year 1978-1979 testified against Respondent regarding incidents between Respondent and these students of a sexual nature. Some of these incidents involved contact or attempted contact such as hugging, kissing or attempting to kiss, touching breasts or attempting to do so, and rubbing the front of his body against students' backsides when passing them when adequate room for passing without contact existed. Several testified to improper comments made to them by Respondent such as "You have a nice set of tits," "I'd like to get in your pants," "You have a nice pair of legs," "Why don't we go to a motel," "You drive an old man crazy," "You have a nice butt and look good in those pants," "One of these days it's going to be you and me," and similar comments regarding female students' anatomy. Much of this testimony was corroborated by other witnesses who overheard the remarks or observed the bodily contact. Additionally, some of the witnesses had complained to their parents or to other faculty members shortly after the incidents. Others first came forward with their complaints when they learned the police were investigating Green's conduct at the school and they became convinced their isolated incidents wouldn't appear unbelievable. Some of these students tolerated and perhaps encouraged the comments to provide them leverage to insure a cover-up for numerous "skips" of classes. Some of these witnesses skipped classes without punishment due to Respondent's position as dean and to whom their infractions were referred. Respondent denied each and every testimonial utterance of misconduct on his part while admitting the situation described by the witnesses, in which the improper actions of Respondent were said to have occurred, were real. During his testimony Respondent referred to school records which would corroborate his testimony, but he made no effort to produce these records or to account for their non-production. Respondent was subjected to three criminal trials on charges stemming from allegations of fact similar to those testified to in these proceedings. He was acquitted on charges alleging battery and false imprisonment and convicted of the offense of attempting to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Those trials resulted in considerable publicity and the allegations became well-known throughout the Pinellas County School System. Several witnesses testified that Respondent's effectiveness in the Pinellas County School System was totally destroyed by virtue of the notoriety gained by Respondent due to this adverse publicity.
