The Issue This proceeding concerns the Respondent's rejection of all bids for construction of its new middle school "FF". Petitioner has challenged that intended action, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the law. The parties disagree as to the basis for the intended action. Initially the School Board considered rejecting all bids for failure to meet MBE/WBE goals, and Petitioner protested. Later, the Respondent determined that significant revisions to the construction documents were required, and the bids were all rejected on that basis. Petitioner protested again, but contends that the original basis for intended action is still at issue. For reasons set forth in the following recommended order, the MBE/WBE goal issue is moot. The central issue for determination, therefore, is whether Respondent properly rejected all bids based on its determination that substantial changes are required, and Petitioner's motion to consolidate its two protests is DENIED.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mark C. Arnold Construction Co., (Arnold), is a commercial general contracting firm located in Orange County, Florida, but well-experienced in building public facilities throughout the state. Arnold currently is engaged in constructing school "EE" for Respondent, Orange County School Board (School Board, or Board). In January 1992, the school board promulgated an advertisement for bid soliciting bids for the construction of a new school project known as Middle School "FF". The advertisement for bid was published five (5) times in the Orlando Sentinel on January 7, 14 and 28 and on February 4 and 1, 1992. The board also compiled a project manual which among other things contained a copy of the advertisement for bid and instructions to bidders which governed the bidding process. The advertisement for bid reserved the school board's "right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received". (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) The instructions to bidders also reserved the school board's "right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the school board of Orange County, Florida...". (Joint Exhibit 5) The project manual also contained a bid form to be used by bidders. In it the bidder agrees "that the Owner reserves the right to reject this bid, or to waive informalities in any bid,...". Such language was contained in the bid submitted by Arnold. (Joint Exhibits 7 and 9) By addendum dated February 5, 1992 the school board amended and replaced Section A-12 of its project manual and instructions to bidders. Such amendment, among other things, established goals for minority/womens business enterprise (MBE/WBE) subcontractor and supplier participation in the project, and it required any bidder who failed to attain the goals to demonstrate a good faith effort to do so; otherwise, the bid of such bidder would be rejected. (Joint Exhibit 8) Arnold's bid showed that Arnold had no MBE/WBE subcontractor or supplier participation. (Joint Exhibit 9) Arnold's bid was the lowest of eleven bids received by the school board. Arnold's bid was in the amount of $10,977,000.00. The next lowest bid was in the amount of $11,075,000.00. After bids were opened, Arnold promptly contacted the MBE/WBE manager of the school board, and was advised by her to try to obtain MBE/WBE participation to meet the goals; within several days after bid opening Arnold was able to get a total of about 13.5% MBE/WBE subcontractor/supplier participation. Contrary to the MBE/WBE manager's instruction, the addendum to the project manual and bid instructions proscribed any effort after bid opening to attain the MBE/WBE goals and to thereby make a bid responsive. In spite of Arnold's attempt to demonstrate to the MBE/WBE manager that it had made a good faith effort to attain the goals prior to bid opening, the MBE/WBE Manager determined that no sufficient good faith effort was shown by Arnold. On March 5, 1992 the school board furnished to Arnold a written notice of its intended decision to reject all bids because of the failure of all contractors (bidders) to attain the MBE/WBE goals and/or to show compliance with the good faith effort requirement of the contract documents. (Joint Exhibit 11) On March 10, 1992 Arnold and its attorney attended a meeting of the school board for the purpose of appealing the MBE/WBE manager's decision that Arnold had not demonstrated a good faith effort to meet the goals. Mark C. Arnold spoke at length to the school board itemizing actions which Arnold contended showed its requisite good faith effort to solicit MBE/WBE participation. Arnold's attorney also made a presentation at the meeting. By a 6 to 1 vote, the board initially sustained the findings of the MBE/WBE manager that a good faith effort was not shown by Arnold, and rejected all bids because of the failure of all contractors (bidders) to meet the minority participation goal and/or to show compliance with the good faith effort requirements of the contract documents. (Joint Exhibits 12 and 15) Following a work session after its initial meeting on March 10, the board convened again in regular session on March 10, at which time it unanimously voted to reconsider its earlier action of rejecting all bids, and it voted to postpone action of the award of a contract for the construction of Middle School "FF". The effect of that action was to rescind its earlier action rejecting all bids and determining that Arnold had not shown a good faith effort to solicit MBE/WBE participation; and also to postpone action on the entire matter to a future time. (Joint Exhibit 13). On March 20, Arnold filed Formal Protest directed to the board's March 5th Notice of Intended Decision and directed to the March 10 action rejecting Arnold's bid. During or about the first week in April, engineers for the school board met with the school board's attorney, William M. Rowland, Jr., to inform him that significant revisions needed to be made in the site work and sewer plant plans for the Middle School "FF" project. The engineers recommended that because of the need to make such revisions all bids for the project should be rejected and the project should be rebid after the plans were revised. As a result of the early April meeting with the engineers, the board's attorney prepared and delivered a memorandum dated April 7th advising the school board of its engineers' recommendations. The attorney also submitted a resolution which, if adopted, would serve to reject all bids and require a rebidding of the project. (Joint Exhibit 16) On April 10th the school board furnished to Arnold an amended notice of intended decision, which by its express terms replaced, amended and superseded its prior notice of intended decision dated March 5th, and notified Arnold of its intent to reject all bids on the project because of the need to make significant revisions in the construction documents. (Joint Exhibit 17) Said amended notice rendered moot the March 20 formal protest filed by Arnold. At its meeting held on April 14th, the board considered the April 7th memorandum from its attorney. At that meeting, the board heard from its staff engineer, Chuck Greif, who pointed out the revisions needed to the site plans for the Project. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 59-62, 77-78) Mark Arnold also spoke, contending that the site revisions could be handled by change orders if Arnold's bid were accepted. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 76-77) Bob Gallardo, the school board Director of Facilities and Planning, advised of problems encountered in the site work and of the need to make significant revisions in the site plans. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 87-92) As the geotechnical engineer on the job, Charles Cunningham stressed the significance of the site plan changes. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 96-97) Derek Burke, engineer on the project, confirmed that major redesign needs to be done. (Joint Exhibit 20, page 64) Attorney Rowland advised that the prior intended decision to reject all bids because of failure of all bidders to comply with the MBE/WBE requirements of the bid documents, was moot and no longer before the board for action, and that the only resolution before the board for action was the resolution to reject all bids because of the need to make significant site plan revisions for the project. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 72-76) The school board unanimously adopted that resolution. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 97-99; Joint Exhibit 18) On April 23rd Arnold timely filed the written formal protest which is the subject of these proceedings. At the time of the meeting held by on April 14th, there was a need to make significant changes in the site work and sewer plant for the Middle School "FF" project. Such changes formed a valid and legitimate reason for the board to reject all bids. Even at the time of this administrative hearing, some details regarding the site work still needed to be worked out. For example, an outfall is needed for the percolation pond underdrain but it was not included in the project design. The site work and sewer plant changes and revisions could have been handled by change orders between Arnold and the school board, had the board accepted Arnold's bid, since any changes in a project can be accomplished by change orders; however, revising the nature and quantity of construction work by change orders involves the potential for excessive cost to the project owner and change orders always require agreement between the parties. Prudence dictates that when it is known that changes must be made, the bid advertisement should include those changes up front to remove the uncertainty of costs and to put all bidders on equal footing. There has been no showing of any illegality, fraud, oppression or misconduct in the actions of the school board in rejecting all bids on the Middle School "FF" Project and in opting to seek new bids for the project. There has been no showing in these proceedings that the school board's rejection of all bids had the purpose or effect of defeating the object and integrity of competitive bidding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protests by Petitioner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Evans Davis, Esquire 170 East Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801 MARY CLARK 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 10th day of July, 1992. William M. Rowland, Jr., Esquire 1786 North Mills Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Dr. James L. Schott, Superintendent Orange County School Board P.O. Box 271 Orlando, FL 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a 14 year old, seventh grade student at Nautilus Junior High School in Dade County, Florida, and all events occurred during the 1986-1987 school year. Mrs. Rita Gold was Respondent's fifth period English teacher. On September 10, 1986, she initiated a student case management referral form as a result of a series of confrontations with Respondent. From the very beginning of the 1986-1987 school year, Mrs. Gold had experienced Respondent's behavior in her class as both disruptive and disinterested, although he had been in attendance up to September 10, 1987. Initially in each school year, each student is given, and is required to complete the Florida State assessment tests. These are essentially for diagnosis of skills and placement in classes. Because Respondent informed Mrs. Gold that he had taken these in a concurrent class, she did not administer the assessment tests to him in her class. Thereafter, she discovered that he had lied and she must administer the tests to him during her class period. This took additional time when he and other students could better have been doing something else. When she presented the tests to him, Mrs. Gold observed Respondent filling out the answer blanks without taking the time to read the question sheet. She is certain of his persistent defiant attitude and refusal to obey her instructions in this regard because he continued to fill out the answer sheet without turning the pages of the skills questionnaire. On other occasions, Respondent made loud rebel outbursts in either English or Spanish of the type that follows: "I have to go to the bathroom!" "I want water!" "I don't understand this!" These outbursts were annoying to Mrs. Gold and disrupted normal classroom decorum. They are inappropriate for one of Respondent's age and Presumed maturity. Further disruptive and disrespectful behavior of Respondent that was noted by Mrs. Gold in her class are that: Respondent often spoke loudly when Mrs. Gold herself attempted to instruct the class; and on one occasion Respondent refused to come to her desk to get a book and announced to the rest of the class that she must bring it to him at his seat (Mrs. Gold has tried Respondent in several assigned seats and he has found fault with all of them). Respondent was chronically tardy; he refused to take home a deficiency notice to let his parents know he could fail the first 9 weeks' grading period but had time to improve; he did not read or write anything in class for the first full 9 weeks unless Mrs. Gold worked on a one-to-one basis with him; sometimes Respondent sat in class with his jacket over his head. Mrs. Gold feels there is no language barrier to Respondent's understanding what she wants. The parents gave her no report of medical disability which would account for Respondent's need for frequent fountain and bathroom requests. Mr. George A. Nunez is a physical education teacher at Nautilus Junior High School. He prepared a case management referral form on Respondent on October 2, 1986. This referral was a culmination of a series of incidents involving Respondent's chronic tardiness, repeated refusals to "dress out" and failure or refusal to remain in his assigned area of the grounds or gymnasium. All of these "acting out" mechanisms of Respondent were described by Mr. Nunez as an "I don't care attitude" and as "intolerable." Mr. Nunez is bilingual in English and Spanish and reports he has no communication problem with Respondent on the basis of language. The communication problem is the result of Respondent's disinterested and disrespectful attitude. All of Respondent's behavior problems were at least minimally disruptive to normal physical education class procedure and all attempts at teaching, but his wandering from the assigned area particularly disrupted other students' ability to learn in Mr. Nunez's class and in other physical education classes held simultaneously. Respondent was belligerent when replying to Mr. Nunez' remonstrances for not standing in the correct place. In the first grading Period of the 1986-1987 school year, Respondent had 8 absences and 3 tardies in physical education, which can only be described as chronic and excessive. He also had no "dress outs." Failure to "dress out," in the absence of some excuse such as extreme poverty, must be presumed to be willfully disobedient and defiant. Respondent did not fulfill his detentions assigned by Mr. Nunez as a discipline measure and repeated his pattern of chronic tardiness and absences in the second grading period, which absences and tardies were recorded by Mr. Nunez on behalf of another teacher who had been assigned Respondent. Stanton Bronstein is a teacher and administrative assistant at Nautilus Junior High School. On September 17, 1986, Mr. Bronstein discovered Respondent in the hallway during second period without a valid reason. He concluded Respondent was "cutting" class when Respondent provided no valid reason for being out of class. On October 3, 1986, Bronstein observed Respondent enter the hallway at approximately 12:30 p.m. Respondent had no satisfactory explanation for why he was out of class or of what he had been doing, and Bronstein concluded Respondent had cut his first through third period classes. Each of these incidents resulted in student case management referrals. On October 6, 1986, Bronstein initiated another student case management referral upon reports of classroom disruption and cutting made by a teacher, Mrs. O'Dell, who did not testify. No admission was obtained by Bronstein from Respondent on this occasion. The underlying facts alleged in the report originating with Mrs. O'Dell are therefore Uncorroborated hearsay, however the case management report of that date is accepted to show that Bronstein contacted Respondent's parents on that occasion and ordered outdoor suspension for Respondent. As of October 21, 1986, Respondent bad been absent from school a total of 10 whole days without any written parental excuse. When he returned on October 21, 1986, he was tardy and was referred to Mr. Bronstein who counseled with Respondent, received no acceptable excuse from him, and initiated a case management referral resulting in indoor suspension with a letter informing Respondent's mother of the suspension. After referrals for incidents on October 23, 1986 and October 31, 1986, further disciplinary measures were taken against Respondent, including a conference with Bronstein, the parents, an interpreter, and the principal, Dr. Smith, present. A series of detentions thereafter were not fulfilled by Respondent in defiance of school authority, despite several rearrangements of the times for the detentions so as to accommodate Respondent's schedule and requests. This resulted in further conferences between the school administrators and the parents with a final outdoor suspension. Dr. Paul Smith, Assistant Principal at Nautilus Junior High School, recounted a lengthy litany of referrals of Respondent by various teachers, a history of counseling sessions, Parental contacts, detentions, and suspensions which had failed to modify Respondent's disruptive, unsuccessful, and disinterested behavior. Respondent's grades for the first grading period of the 1986-1987 school year were straight "Fs" (failures). Respondent was frequently seen by Dr. Smith leaving school after he had once arrived. No medical condition was made known to Dr. Smith which would account for Respondent's misbehavior. Respondent has been evaluated by the child study team and Dr. Smith concurs in their analysis that it is in Respondent's best interest that he be referred to Jan Mann Opportunity School-North, where a highly structured alternative education program with a low Student-to-teacher ratio can control him Sufficiently to educate him. Bronstein concurs in this assessment. Both feel all that can be done in the regular school setting has been done for Respondent. At hearing, the mother, Mrs. Gonzalez, asked a number of questions which assumed that notes had been set to school asking that Respondent be given extra opportunities to get water because of excessive thirst, but no school personnel bad ever received any such notes. Despite numerous parent-school conferences, no school Personnel could remember this issue being raised Previously. By her questions, Mrs. Gonzalez also Suggested that Respondent had no gym clothes. However, Mrs. Gonzalez offered no oral testimony and no documentary evidence to support either premise and the parents' Posthearing submittal does not raise these defenses. The undersigned ordered the Respondent's posthearing proposal which was submitted in Spanish to be translated into English and thereafter considered it. The proposal only complains about the alternative educational Placement upon grounds of excessive distance of Jan Mann Opportunity School-North from the Respondent's home and states the parents will place him in a private school. Since Respondent has not already been withdrawn from the Dade County Public School System, the latter statement cannot be accepted as dispositive of all disputed issues of material fact, as it might be under other circumstances. As a whole, the Respondent's Posthearing Proposal is rejected as irrelevant, not dispositive of the issues at bar.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter its Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to the school system's opportunity school program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North until such time as an assessment shows that Respondent can be returned to the regular school system. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire 8360 West Flagler Street Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33144 Norma Gonzalez 657 Lennox Avenue, Unit No. 1 Miami Beach, Florida 33139
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 739881, covering the areas of Physical Education and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. He has held a certification in Florida since 2005. Respondent is African- American. At all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been employed as an In- School Suspension (ISS) Teacher at the CARE Program in the Calhoun County School District (District). The CARE acronym is shorthand for character, achievement, respect, and education. The CARE Program is a second-chance school for students who have been suspended for more than ten days, have been suspended for drug offenses, or who are currently in a juvenile facility. The first time a student is assigned to the CARE Program, it is for a 90-day term. If the student does well, he or she returns to their regular school. The second referral is for a period of 180 days; the third for a year. The CARE Program generally has approximately 30-40 students at a time. In November 2012, the program had approximately 31-32 students. The CARE Program is located at a facility that used to house a vocational complex, next to the adult school. Also housed in this complex is the In-School Suspension (ISS) class, where students serve in-school suspensions of less than ten days. Students are referred to the ISS class for behavior such as tardiness and being disruptive in the classroom. The number of students in the ISS classroom varies, because it depends on how many students have been referred. There is a limit to how many students can be in the ISS class, because each school has a cap on the number of students it can refer at any given time. Testimony varied as to how many students were present at the time of the incident giving rise to this case. The most reasonable and credible testimony indicates that on November 14, 2012, there were approximately 15-20 students in the ISS class. There was adequate room in the ISS classroom for the number of students in the class. Some time prior to the incident giving rise to this case, part of the complex where the CARE Program and the ISS class were housed underwent construction. As a result, several staff members working in the complex had tires punctured because of construction debris in the area. The District would reimburse employees for repairs to tires that were punctured if the employee submitted the documentation related to the repair. Respondent had requested two new tires, as opposed to repair of his tires. Although the record is not clear when Respondent made his request, there was some delay in any action being taken to address it. Wilson McClellan was the superintendent of the District from 2000 to 2004, and then again from 2008 to 2012, after which he retired. Mr. McClellan, who is Caucasian, was an educator in Calhoun County for approximately 25 years. He had worked with Respondent in a summer recreation program at some point before Respondent was hired by the District. Mr. McClellan had told Respondent that if there was an opening in Calhoun County, he would give Respondent a call and let him know. On November 13, 2012, Mr. McClellan was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent. The next day, he visited the CARE Program and spoke with several of the staff there, presumably to touch base with people with whom he had worked. He came to the CARE Program around midday, and class was in session. While he was there, Mr. McClellan went to speak with Respondent about Respondent’s pending request for reimbursement for his tires. While repairs had been authorized, no other staff member had requested new tires. Mr. McClellan told Respondent that he would need to submit documentation for the reimbursement for action by the School Board, as opposed to the superintendent, because Mr. McClellan did not feel comfortable authorizing the expenditure when no one else had requested reimbursement for new tires instead of repair of existing ones. Mr. McClellan knocked on the door to the ISS classroom and he and Respondent went into the small office adjacent to it. When he told Respondent about the need to submit the reimbursement matter to the Board, Respondent became angry and walked back into his classroom. Respondent told McClellan, in the presence of his students, that if he had a different last name and a different color, then the results would have been different. McClellan denied Respondent’s claim and left the classroom. Mr. Thomas’s classroom had an inside door, going into a hallway, and an outside door that led to a covered pavilion area with picnic tables. Also adjacent to the area with the picnic tables is Barbara Hathaway’s office. Ms. Hathaway served as the Dean of Students for the CARE Program, a position that functions much like a principal does in a traditional school. When Mr. McClellan left the classroom, he went to the area with the picnic tables. Ms. Hathaway saw him there and came out to speak with him. While Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan were speaking, Respondent came out of his classroom and asked Ms. Hathaway to get someone to cover his class because he was “pretty hot” and needed to walk. According to Ms. Hathaway, Respondent was agitated and upset. She did not understand him to mean he was overheated based on temperature, but rather that he was upset or angry, and her testimony is credited. Without waiting for coverage for his class, Respondent walked away from the classroom and the area where Mr. McClellan and Ms. Hathaway were standing and up the sidewalk. Ms. Hathaway left to ask another staff member to cover the classroom and was going to walk back outside when she heard Mr. Thomas speaking loudly. She could not hear what Mr. Thomas said, but his tone was agitated. She noticed that the ISS classroom door to the outside was open, and the students could hear the heated conversation between their instructor and the superintendent, so she opened the inside door and told a student to shut the outside door. Ms. Hathaway thought from the students’ reactions that they were enjoying the interchange between Mr. McClellan and Mr. Thomas. She used her phone to call for a resource officer because she felt the situation was agitated and that someone should be present to intervene. After Ms. Hathaway walked inside to arrange for coverage for the classroom, Mr. Thomas had walked back down the sidewalk to Mr. McClellan. He repeated to Mr. McClellan that in this county, if he had a different last name and a different color, it would probably be a different result. Mr. McClellan became impatient and said, “shut up Ed, I am just not wanting to hear any more about that.” Mr. Thomas walked closer to him, glared and said, “if you ever say shut up again to me, I will be the last black man you ever say that to.”1/ Mr. Thomas is a large, imposing figure, and according to Mr. McClellan, he spoke in a loud, angry voice and “bowed up” in a threatening gesture; however, he was never close enough to the superintendent to actually strike him. While Ms. Hathaway could not hear the actual language being used, both Ms. Barbee, who came to cover the ISS classroom, and the students in the classroom were able to hear the colorful exchange. Ms. Barbee testified that she did not remember the actual conversation, but that there was “some cussing and hollering.” Her statement written the day of the incident indicates that Mr. Thomas used the term “f**k.” Likewise, P.G., one of the students in the classroom, testified that Mr. Thomas told Mr. McClellan, “don’t tell me to shut the f**k up,” and for him to “shut the f**k up.” P.G. believed the students in the room were shocked at the interchange.2/ After this exchange, Respondent once again walked away from Mr. McClellan and up the sidewalk away from his class. On both occasions, Respondent was five to six classroom lengths away from his classroom, and unable to monitor in any way the actions of his students. Ms. Hathaway, as noted above, was not present for this heated exchange and did not hear what was said. When she returned outside, Mr. Thomas was standing on the sidewalk up the hill from the classroom. She spoke to Mr. McClellan, who told her about the conversation with Mr. Thomas. What he told her involved the reimbursement issue and not any complaint about overcrowding. About that time Warren Tanner, the school resource officer, came around the corner. When he arrived, he saw Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan sitting on a bench under the pavilion, and Mr. Thomas was standing at the end of the driveway at the end of the building. Mr. Tanner asked what had happened, and Mr. McClellan told him that Mr. Thomas had threatened him. Mr. Thomas walked back down the hill to where the others were standing, and Mr. McClellan told him to go home for the rest of the day. Mr. Thomas went into his classroom briefly, then came out and asked Mr. McClellan if he was sending him home for the rest of the day, and was told, “yes.” Mr. Thomas got in his truck to leave, then got out and asked Mr. Tanner if this was going to be a complaint, and Mr. Tanner told him, not at this time. Mr. McClellan returned to his office and called David House, the school board attorney. He related the events of the morning and told Mr. House that, in light of past behavior by Mr. Thomas and the current incident, he was considering terminating Mr. Thomas. Later that afternoon, Vicki Davis, assistant superintendent for the District, called Mr. Tanner and asked him to collect statements from those who witnessed or heard the morning’s events. Mr. Tanner got statements from Mr. McClellan, Ms. Hathaway, Ms. Barbee, and several students in Mr. Thomas’s class.3/ On Thursday, November 15, 2012, Mr. McClellan wrote to Mr. Thomas advising him that he was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Respondent had been the subject of discipline previously, and there had been concerns expressed about his behavior during his employment in Calhoun County. For example, in January 2008, he received a formal reprimand for allegedly confronting a fellow teacher in front of students in a loud, belligerent, and profane manner.4/ On June 3, 2008, Respondent received a second reprimand for allegedly leaving a magazine with an unclothed woman on the cover in the Health Building bathroom where it could be viewed by students. On January 13, 2011, Neva Miller, the principal of Blountstown Middle School, wrote a lengthy letter to Superintendent McClellan detailing several alleged incidents involving Mr. Thomas that caused her to “express concerns that I have as to the effectiveness and concerning anger control abilities of Edward Thomas.” A two-page document titled “Ed Thomas Issues Calendar Year 2011” was placed in his personnel file, recounting a series of concerns regarding alleged deficiencies in his performance. On February 23, 2012, Ms. Hathaway, as Dean of the CARE Program, documented an alleged incident involving a ninth-grade student.5/ On December 11, 2012, Mr. McClellan’s successor, Superintendent Ralph Yoder, issued a Notice of Charges for Dismissal to the Calhoun County School Board, recommending Respondent be suspended without pay and dismissed from employment by the District. The Notice of Charges stated, “Mr. Thomas has a history of engaging in insubordinate, hostile and confrontational behavior toward faculty members and administrators, which began in 2007 and culminated in an incident that occurred on November 14, 2012, involving the former Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Tommy McClellan. Mr. Thomas has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct his behavior, but he has failed to do so.” The Notice goes on to describe 13 separate incidents and references several others. Only the incident involving Mr. McClellan on November 14, 2012, is alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and Petitioner presented no evidence to prove what happened with respect to the other incidents. No findings are made concerning the validity of the other allegations in the Notice of Charges. It is considered solely to show that the District took action with respect to Respondent’s employment. Likewise, it is unclear what, if any, proceedings were conducted with respect to the Notice of Charges before the school board. Respondent acknowledged that his employment was terminated as of December 11, 2012, the day the Notice was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s teaching certificate for one year; that he submit to an evaluation for anger management by the Recovery Network on terms to be set by the Education Practices Commission; and that upon re-employment as an educator, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, with terms and conditions to be set by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Miami-Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Petitioner's district, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Raynard W. Pasteur (Respondent) was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor at Frank C. Martin Elementary School (Martin Elementary). Respondent began his employment with Petitioner on August 31, 1990, at Palmetto Middle School (Palmetto) as a school security monitor and remained at Palmetto until September 29, 1991. On January 27, 1994, Respondent began working as a school security monitor at Martin Elementary. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). As a member of the UTD, Respondent was subject to the collective bargaining agreement (UTD Contract) between Petitioner and the UTD, as well as any Memorandum of Understanding between Petitioner and UTD. On February 2, 1998, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) was held with Respondent. In attendance at the CFR were Respondent; two of his union representatives; Isaac Rodriguez, Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS); Dr. Jose Carbia, Petitioner's Director of Region V; and Pamela Siplin, Principal at Martin Elementary. The purpose of the CFR was to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform his assigned duties, to review Respondent's records, and to address Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Prior to the CFR, Jose Garcia, a clinical coordinator with Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), performed an assessment of Respondent. After performing the assessment, Mr. Garcia determined that he had a duty-to-warn situation. The circumstances of a duty-to-warn situation demonstrate that serious bodily harm or injury may result or that there is a threat of serious bodily harm or injury. Having made such a determination, Mr. Garcia contacted his supervisor and discussed the duty-to-warn situation involving Respondent. Afterwards, Mr. Garcia contacted OPS. Mr. Garcia, his supervisor, and OPS subsequently contacted Dr. Carbia. Mr. Garcia informed Dr. Carbia that his (Mr. Garcia's) assessment of Respondent presented a duty-to-warn situation and that potentially bodily harm or injury could be inflicted against certain employees of Region V. Mr. Garcia did not discuss any details with OPS or with Dr. Carbia. An employee's participation in the EAP program is confidential and voluntary. Breach of the confidentiality by a clinical coordinator is permitted when a duty-to-warn situation presents itself in order to warn the affected persons of the threat of serious bodily harm or injury without discussing details of the situation. Under the circumstances, Mr. Garcia was permitted to breach the confidentiality afforded Respondent. A written statement dated February 2, 1998, explaining Petitioner's justification for requiring Respondent to submit to a medical examination, was presented to Respondent. The written statement stated, among other things, the following: This employer [Petitioner] has need to determine your fitness to carry out your assigned duties. Because of your exhibited behavior at the worksite as well as your self reported medical condition, this employer has reason to seek an immediate medical examination which will be considered relative to your future and continued employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. According to Ms. Siplin, the principal at Martin Elementary, Respondent's attendance was good and, in most instances, he was cooperative. She never reported any erratic or unusual behavior exhibited by Respondent. As observed by Ms. Siplin, Respondent's behavior at the worksite was acceptable and satisfactory. However, the behavior complained of referred to the Respondent's behavior at the work site as assessed by Mr. Garcia. A finding of fact is made that the written statement dated February 2, 1998, is a sufficient written statement justifying Petitioner's requirement for Respondent to submit to a medical examination regarding his fitness to carry out his assigned duties. At the CFR, a determination was made, among other things, that a medical fitness evaluation, i.e., a fitness-for- duty evaluation, was required. During the CFR, a representation was made to Respondent that Mr. Garcia had spoken to Respondent's psychiatrist because of Mr. Garcia's concern for Respondent and the staff at Martin Elementary; however, Mr. Garcia did not reveal any details of Respondent's assessment to OPS or the Director of Region V. The representation has no effect on the determination that a fitness-for-duty evaluation was required. A finding of fact is made that, regardless of the representation, a sufficient basis existed for such a determination and that it was reasonable and appropriate to require a fitness-for-duty evaluation of Respondent. A fitness-for-duty evaluation is an assessment by a psychologist or psychiatrist to determine whether an employee is psychologically competent to perform his or her job and whether that employee could potentially be a danger to himself or herself, co-workers, or students. The fitness-for-duty evaluation is designed to identify what it would take to get the employee back to work. The employee chooses the medical practitioner to perform the fitness-for-duty evaluation. According to the UTD Contract, when there has been a written statement of the need for an examination, the employee is to choose the medical practitioner from Petitioner's list of State-licensed physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Respondent and his union representatives were provided a list of Petitioner approved psychiatrists and psychologists from which Dr. Larry Harmon, Ph.D., was chosen by Respondent. An appointment was made by OPS for Respondent with Dr. Harmon and was scheduled for February 6, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. At the CFR, Respondent was also placed in an alternative assignment at home during the process of the fitness-for-duty evaluation. Certain directives were given to Respondent during the CFR. The directives were as follows: Keep your scheduled appointment with Larry Harmon, Ph.D. Call Ms. Pamela Siplin at 238-3688, each work day between 7:30-7:40 a.m. and 3:50- 4:00 p.m. Be available at home during work hours for phone calls from your work site. Notify the work site of any appointments that would necessitate your absence from your alternative assignment (home) during work hours. Respondent was advised that failure to comply with the directives would necessitate a review by OPS for the imposition of disciplinary measures, including suspension, demotion or dismissal. At the CFR, Respondent was also provided a copy of Petitioner's Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Employee Conduct and Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, Non-Instructional Personnel. Dr. Larry Harmon, Ph.D., conducted the fitness-for- duty evaluation which was administered for approximately nine hours over a three-day period, beginning on February 6, 1998. The evaluation consisted of Dr. Harmon reviewing background information provided by Mr. Rodriguez of OPS and background memoranda concerning Respondent's prior criminal activity; reviewing Respondent's job description; conducting a clinical interview with Respondent; performing psychological testing of Respondent; consulting with Mr. Garcia of EAP; and conferring with Respondent's parents. Dr. Harmon was unable to consult with Respondent's treating psychiatrist and psychologist. Routinely, Dr. Harmon requests that his patients sign a release and consent for the fitness-for-duty evaluation. The release and consent provides for the exchange and release of information and discussion with OPS, as well as EAP. Respondent signed Dr. Harmon's release and consent and, as a result, Dr. Harmon was able to consult with Mr. Garcia of EAP. Dr. Harmon also attempted to obtain a release from Respondent regarding the exchange of information with Respondent's treating psychologist, Dr. Eve McNanamy, Ph.D., and treating psychiatrist, Dr. Edgar Patino, M.D. In Dr. Harmon's opinion, the outside information from Respondent's treating psychologist and psychiatrist was essential to corroborate Respondent's self-report. However, Respondent refused to sign the release. Respondent did not "like" some of Dr. Harmon's methods or the way Dr. Harmon kept his office. Moreover, Respondent's psychiatrist, Dr. Patino, advised Respondent that he (Respondent) was not required to sign the release and that his (Respondent's) failure to sign could not be held against him. Having reviewed background information provided by Mr. Rodriguez of OPS and background memoranda concerning Respondent's prior criminal activity; having reviewed Respondent's job description; having conducted a clinical interview with Respondent; having performed psychological testing; having consulted with Mr. Garcia of EAP; and having conferred with Respondent's parents, Dr. Harmon formed an opinion as to Respondent's psychological condition. In his report dated March 1, 1998, (Report), Dr. Harmon made the following observations in his "Summary and Recommendations": With respect to diagnosis -- based on clinical interview, mental status examination, psychological test results, collaborative consultation, and review of related written records -- he [Respondent] presents, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM IV), with a probable as follows: Axis I: Clinical Disorders and Conditions Delusional Disorder (297.1), Persecutory Type [emphasis in original] Axis II: Personality Disorders Deferred. [emphasis in original] Axis III: Physical Disorders and Conditions Deferred. [emphasis in original] Given the information with which this psychologist was able to utilize, there is no clear evidence of any severe cognitive or affective disorder which would absolutely prevent him form currently performing any kind of work at all. However, because he was highly guarded and reluctant to share his current life circumstances, history, and current treatment recommendations, it is difficult to rule out the probability of a potential direct threat, especially to coworkers. With respect to his current position as a School Security Monitor II, the job requirements include, but are not limited to, both physical and interpersonal tasks . . . He appears to be capable of performing the physical requirements of the job . . . In addition, he is probably able to perform the non-interpersonal responsibilities of his job description . . . However, individuals with Delusional Disorder may have significant difficulties effectively and objectively performing complex interpersonal job tasks . . . His current symptoms -- clearly consistent with Delusional Disorder -- are likely to cause his thinking to be suspicious and potentially impair his judgement. In fact the DSM IV states that "People with persecutory delusions are often resentful and angry, and may resort to violence against those they believe are hurting them." Based on the above information, there appears to be a potentially significant risk of substantial harm to coworkers based on the following factors: The results of this individualized Fitness for Duty assessment . . . The results of objective psychological assessment, based on current psychological knowledge and assessment tools and techniques, suggest a potential for unpredictable and highly aggressive behavior. A review of prior history [criminal history]. . . A review of current information that suggests he is a current risk based in part on this evaluation as well as upon Jose Garcia's (of the M-D.C.P.S. E.A.P.) report that Mr. Pasteur recently called him and stated, among other comments, that "I am going to stop them." And "I'm just telling you that in case I have to do something." Finally, Mr. Pasteur reports that his psychiatrist's efforts to treat him with medication are obstructed by his unwillingness to follow his psychiatrist's recommendations and so it appears that efforts to reduce or eliminate his delusional thinking are not fruitful which, therefore, maintain the current level potential of significant risk of substantial harm to others. Therefore, because he is considered a potential direct threat and, thus, a significant risk of substantial harm to others, there is insufficient supporting information based on this assessment to clear him to return to work. Therefore, he is considered as the present time not fit for duty. [emphasis in original] His Delusional Disorder appears to seriously impair major life functions such as his social judgement, an essential requirement for his job which requires significant skills to interact effectively in interpersonal interactions. In his Report, Dr. Harmon continued with the following recommendations in his "Summary and Recommendations": In order for Mr. Pasteur [Petitioner] to be eventually cleared to return to work, it is recommended that M-D.C.P.S. support Mr. Pasteur's efforts to reduce and, hopefully, eliminate the probability that he will be a potentially direct threat to others. The following accommodations are recommended in order to assist him to get appropriate and effective treatment so that he may return to work: Provide Mr. Pasteur with at least one month of medical leave, consistent with medical leave benefits and policies for all other employees in his category, so that he may receive appropriate mental health treatment. It is recommended that he follow all of his psychiatrist's recommendations which are designed to reduce the symptoms of his Delusional Disorder to a sufficient extent that he is fit for duty. Participate in psychotherapeutic treatment with Eve McNanamy, Ph.D., his treating psychologist, and follow all recommendations designed to reduce the symptoms of his Delusional Disorder and improve his social judgement and interpersonal functioning to the extent that he is no longer a potentially direct threat and is able to function adequately in the School Security Monitor II position. In order to provide assurance that he is no longer a potentially direct threat and that he is fit for duty, that Mr. Pasteur provide me with a limited Release of Information for all of his mental health professionals which restricts the release of information to those symptoms, behavioral patterns, and treatment compliance issues directly relevant to his Fitness for Duty determination. . . . Because of his likely resistance [to take prescribed antipsychotic medication], and in order to support that his continuation and increased frequency of psychotherapeutic and psychiatric treatment render him fit for duty, it is recommended that Mr. Pasteur sign a Release of Information which enables the Employee Assistance Program to communicate directly with his psychologist and psychiatrist to assist him in getting additional treatment sessions approved, etc. It is recommended that he be re- evaluated for fitness for duty after at least one month to determine the extent to which he is adhering to treatment recommendations, responding to treatment as evidenced by reduced symptoms, displaying symptomoloty which could impair his job performance, and free of symptoms which render him a potentially direct threat to others. Dr. Harmon's fitness-for-duty evaluation was forwarded to Petitioner. On March 3, 1998, a CFR was conducted to address Respondent's medical fitness for continued employment, to review the record, and to address Respondent's future employment status. In attendance at the CFR was Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; a representative for Dr. Carbia; and Ms. Siplin. Respondent's father was allowed to attend but only as an observer. Prior to the CFR, Respondent was provided a copy of Dr. Harmon's Report and read it. After reading the Report, Respondent requested, and Mr. Rodriguez complied with the request, that no one at the CFR be allowed to review the Report. Respondent was advised that the focus of the CFR was Dr. Harmon's recommendations contained in the Report. During the CFR held on March 3, 1998, Respondent's father interrupted the CFR several times. Finally, Respondent's father was asked to leave the CFR and, unfortunately, the last interruption by Respondent's father caused the CFR to end. A Summary of the CFR dated April 30, 1998, was sent to Respondent. The Summary included, among other things, directives from Mr. Rodriguez which were that Respondent was required to comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations and to comply within five (5) days of receipt of the Summary. The Summary also advised Respondent, among other things, that Mr. Rodriguez would verify his (Respondent's) compliance with the directives; that, as of March 16, 1998, Respondent's status on Petitioner's payroll record was on leave-without-pay authorized; that Respondent had applied for a medical leave of absence retroactive from March 17, 1998, through May 17, 1998, which complies with one of Dr. Harmon's recommendations; and that Respondent's failure to comply with the directives could lead to suspension or dismissal. By memorandum dated May 20, 1998, Respondent was notified by the executive director of OPS that clearance from OPS was required in order for his return to work. Respondent was further advised that a clearance conference was a requirement for his return to work; that he must schedule a clearance conference before May 27, 1998; and that failure to schedule and/or attend the clearance conference would result in disciplinary action. Respondent failed to comply with the directives given him in the Summary of the CFR dated April 30, 1998. As a result, a CFR was held on June 4, 1998, essentially to address his noncompliance with the directives. The attendees of the CFR on June 4, 1998, were Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; Ms. Siplin; and a representative for Dr. Carbia. One of the directives was for Respondent to comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations; Respondent had complied with only one of the recommendations which was to obtain extended medical leave. At the CFR, among other things, Respondent was directed to make an appointment with Dr. Harmon by a date certain and to obtain a medical leave extension to cover his present absence and future absence to be recommended by Dr. Harmon. By memorandum dated August 4, 1998, from Mr. Rodriguez, Respondent was provided with a written Summary of the CFR held on June 4, 1998. The Summary also contained events that had occurred since the CFR. Mr. Rodriguez indicated in the Summary, among other things, that Respondent had provided notification that he (Respondent) was currently being treated by Dr. Patino; that Dr. Harmon's office had notified OPS that Respondent had scheduled an appointment and had later cancelled the appointment, but had not rescheduled the appointment; that Respondent failed to obtain approved leave and was on non- approved leave status; and that Respondent continued to be in noncompliance with the directives. Mr. Rodriguez again gave Respondent directives in the memorandum of August 4, 1998. The directives were as follows: You [Respondent] are advised of the availability of services from the District's [Petitioner's] support referral service. You must comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations as stated in his report. You must schedule an appointment with Dr. Harmon by contacting his office no later than 24 hours from receipt of this letter. You must immediately obtain a Board [Petitioner] approved medical leave of absence to cover the period from 5/19/98 through the necessary recommended time by Dr. Harmon. Mr. Rodriguez further advised Respondent in the memorandum that failure to comply with the directives would compel Petitioner to take further disciplinary action including dismissal. Respondent continued to fail to comply with the directives. As a result, a CFR was held on September 21, 1998. In attendance at the CFR was Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; Ms. Siplin; and the personnel director for Petitioner's Region V, Clarence Jones. At the CFR on September 21, 1998, among other things, Respondent indicated that he had not complied with Dr. Harmon's recommendations and had not applied for and obtained an approved medical leave of absence. However, Respondent indicated that he had obtained an appointment with Dr. Harmon which was scheduled for September 25, 1998. Consequently, Respondent requested that he be allowed to keep his appointment with Dr. Harmon, obtain an approved medical leave of absence, and again attempt to resolve the matter after the appointment and a review of his medical evaluation report. Mr. Rodriguez did not agree to Respondent's request, but advised Respondent that his (Respondent's) matter would be forwarded for legal review and possible disciplinary action including suspension or dismissal. Even after the CFR of September 21, 1998, OPS attempted to give Respondent another opportunity to comply with the directives. By letter dated November 9, 1998, the senior executive director of OPS, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, notified Respondent that he was again being provided an opportunity to comply with the directives. The directives in the letter were as follows: You [Respondent] must comply with all of Dr. Harmon's initial recommendations as stated in his March 1, 1998, medical fitness for duty [sic] report. You must schedule an appointment with Dr. Harmon by contacting his office no later than 24 hours from receipt of this letter. You must immediately obtain a Board [Petitioner] approved medical leaves [sic] of absence to cover absences starting May 19, 1998 through the present. (Leave application attached.) Dr. Annunziata further directed Respondent to comply with the above directives within three (3) working days of receipt of the letter. She advised and notified Respondent that his continued failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination and would lead to disciplinary action including dismissal. Respondent failed to comply with the directives given him by Dr. Annunziata. Because Respondent failed to schedule another appointment with Dr. Harmon to provide Dr. Harmon an opportunity to re-evaluate Respondent, Dr. Harmon's initial evaluation remained valid. Respondent remained unfit to return to work. Respondent had a right not to execute a consent and release of information for Dr. Harmon to contact and exchange information with his (Respondent's) treating psychiatrist and psychologist. Such an exchange of information would have immensely assisted Dr. Harmon, and in his Report, Dr. Harmon referred to such exchange of information as essential. Respondent had no understanding that his refusal to sign a consent and release would have such serious ramifications, i.e., dismissal proceedings. Even though lack of information from Respondent's treating psychiatrist and psychologist warrant finding Respondent unfit to return to work, Respondent cannot be disciplined for exercising his right to not execute a consent and release of information. Moreover, this Administrative Law Judge is persuaded that Respondent continued to believe that, as long as he was not refusing to be seen by Dr. Harmon and as long as he was being continually treated by his psychiatrist and psychologist, he (Respondent) could and would be permitted to reschedule his appointment with Dr. Harmon. Respondent did not appreciate the serious ramifications, i.e., dismissal proceedings, of not keeping his appointments with Dr. Harmon. Even at the hearing before this Administrative Law Judge, Respondent continued with his disbelief that failure to reschedule and keep the appointment with Dr. Harmon was such a serious course of action on his part. Respondent presented no medical evidence at hearing to contradict Petitioner's medical evidence and to demonstrate that he is medically fit to return to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Raynard W. Pasteur without pay, but not dismissing him from employment, and reinstating Raynard W. Pasteur under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 23rd day of July, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, who is employed as an occupational therapist by a local school board, is considered a “teacher” eligible for the 2015 State of Florida Best and Brightest Scholarship Program.
Findings Of Fact The 2015 Florida Legislature Appropriations Act created the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program, chapter 2015- 232, p. 27, Item 99A. The eligibility pre-requisites for applying to and being awarded the Scholarship (up to $10,000) were established in the Scholarship. The Scholarship provides as follows: Funds in Specific Appropriation 99A are provided to implement Florida's Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. The funds shall be used to award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT. To be eligible for a scholarship, a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment and have been evaluated as highly effective pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, or if the teacher is a first-year teacher who has not been evaluated pursuant to section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. In order to demonstrate eligibility for an award, an eligible teacher must submit to the school district, no later than October 1, 2015, an official record of his or her SAT or ACT score demonstrating that the teacher scored at or above the 80th percentile based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment. By December 1, 2015, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall submit to the department the number of eligible teachers who qualify for the scholarship. By February 1, 2016, the department shall disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each eligible teacher to receive a scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district, charter school governing board, and the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind shall provide payment of the scholarship to each eligible teacher. If the number of eligible teachers exceeds the total the department shall prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. The Scholarship does not define the word “teacher.” Petitioner, who timely filed an application for the Scholarship, contends that she is a “teacher” and is therefore eligible for the award. Respondent and Intervenor contend that Petitioner is an occupational therapist, and, as such, she is not considered a “classroom teacher,” which is the target group that the Legislature intended for the teacher scholarship program to cover. Petitioner contends that even if the Scholarship is limited to “classroom teachers,” she meets the statutory definition of a “classroom teacher” and is therefore eligible to receive the Scholarship. It is undisputed that the 2015 Scholarship language is vague as to whether the Scholarship is limited to classroom teachers. In 2016, the Legislature made it clear that the award is intended to only cover “classroom teachers.” Legislation enacted in subsequent legislative sessions may be examined to ascertain legislative intent. See Crews v. Fla. Pub. Emp’rs Council 79, AFSCME, 113 So. 3d 1063, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(citing Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216, 1230 (Fla. 2006)). Recently, the Governor signed chapter 2016-62, Laws of Florida. Section 25 of chapter 2016-62 enacts section 1012.731, Florida Statutes, the Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program.1/ Section 1012.731(2) provides that the “scholarship program shall provide categorical funding for scholarships to be awarded to classroom teachers, as defined in s. 1012.01(2)(a), who have demonstrated a high level of academic success.” The Legislature's amendment of the language, just a year after the first appropriation, confirms that the Legislature intended the award to go to "classroom teachers," as defined in chapter 1012. Petitioner was hired by Respondent as an occupational therapist. She has worked as an occupational therapist for Respondent for approximately 17 years. Petitioner does not hold a Florida teaching certificate and her position as an occupational therapist does not require a Florida teaching certificate. Instead, Petitioner is licensed by the Florida Department of Health, which has jurisdiction over ethical violations committed by occupational therapists licensed in Florida. In her position as an occupational therapist, Petitioner reports to Respondent’s director of Pupil Support Services, who supervises all therapists within Sarasota County Public Schools. Petitioner’s stated job goal is “[t]o facilitate the handicapped student’s independent functioning in the school setting.” Petitioner’s performance responsibilities, as set forth in her job description, are to: Conduct appropriate evaluation of students referred for possible exceptional student education needs and prepare reports of the evaluation and findings. Plan intervention and service delivery programs to meet student’s individual needs. Implement and direct interventions essential to meeting targeted students’ needs. Provide information and consultative services to appropriate personnel in support of students with disabilities. * * * Establish schedules for meeting with students, conferencing with parents and assisting in rehabilitation techniques. Provide resources to all stakeholders involved in the evaluation, identification of student needs and rehabilitation of students. Petitioner delivers therapeutic services individually or in a small group setting, in a room assigned to her, or in a classroom, usually at the same time a teacher is delivering instruction to the entire class. Petitioner completes “lesson plans,” which are referred to in the therapy setting as “plans of care.” Plans of care differ in substance from lesson plans prepared by teachers because lesson plans set out a teaching plan for the entire class, whereas plans of care set out therapeutic goals and activities directed to one student that complies with the goals set forth in a student's Individualized Education Plan (IEP). As an occupational therapist, Petitioner is responsible for maintaining a “class roster,” which is referred to in the therapy setting as a “caseload.” Occupational therapists maintain a caseload for student accountability purposes and for Medicaid billing purposes. Petitioner’s therapy sessions are assigned a “700” course code, which correlates in the Florida Department of Education's course directory to “related services.” Joint Exhibit O is an example of courses offered to students by Respondent. The course list includes math, language arts, physical education, science, social studies, art, Chinese, music, and occupational therapy. Petitioner is listed as the “teacher” for the occupational therapy course. Unlike the other listed “teachers,” Petitioner is not instructing students in a subject area; she is delivering a service. See § 468.203(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2015). Succinctly stated, the difference, in this context, between “occupational therapy” and the other listed “courses,” is that occupational therapy is not a subject area that a student learns about; it is a service that a student receives to help them to achieve independent functioning. Although listed as “course” by Respondent, occupational therapy, as compared to the other listed “courses,” is not a “course” within the meaning of section 1012.01(2)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County enter a final order finding Petitioner ineligible for the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all times has been a licensed physician, holding Florida license number ME 0029977. He has been licensed in Florida since about 1976. G.L. is 73 years old. He has a third grade education. Previously, he was a farmworker in the fields. He is at most barely literate. In any event, he would not appreciate the meaning of a document of the type described below. G.L. and his companion, A.M., who is 59 years old and unemployed, had been patients of Respondent for about eight years at the time of the subject incident. From time to time, Respondent has lent his patients money, such as for transportation or medicine. Respondent's daughter, who serves as his office manager, has even provided transportation for patients in order to get them to the office and back home. On certain occasions, Respondent has lent G.L. money or paid for his medicine, although the amounts involved were not significant. On many other occasions, Respondent provided G.L. with free medication by giving him samples. Respondent did not keep track of the amounts involved because of the unlikelihood of any repayment. Between 1980 and the time of the incident, G.L.'s total charges for medical services rendered by Respondent were less than $5000. Medicare or Medicaid paid for about 80% of these costs. In May, 1986, G.L. suffered injuries as a result of an automobile accident. Respondent treated G.L., who had a balance due of about $824 at the time in question. Respondent referred G.L. to Franklin Douglas McKnight, who also served as Respondent's attorney, for representation in the recovery of damages for personal injuries. By January, 1987, Mr. McKnight was close to settling the case. At this point, Respondent visited Mr. McKnight and said that G.L. had agreed to pay Respondent a percentage of the settlement. The net amount that was estimated to be due G.L. was roughly $25,000, and Respondent was claiming $12,500. Mr. McKnight informed Respondent that he could not pay him a percentage and, in any event, could not pay him anything unless G.L. signed a letter authorizing the disbursement to Respondent. Mr. McKnight showed Respondent a simple example of such a letter. Respondent then prepared a letter for G.L. to sign. The letter stated: To Whom It May Concern: For past services, medical, social and humane assistance and personal loans rendered to me [G.L.] and my family during last many years. We hereby agree that the sum of $12,500 ... may be deducted from the net proceeds recovered as a result of the automobile accident, of date 5-30-86. I, [G.L.] Hereby thus authorize you, Mr. Douglas McKnight, (My representing Lawer) to disburse above amount out of net proceeds to Dr. Prem N. Tandon, M.D. without reservations. Thanking you: [Signed by G.L. and A.M. as witness.] During an office visit, Respondent presented the letter to G.L. and A.M. for their signature. Little if any meaningful explanation accompanied the signing. G.L. and A.M. signed the letter based on their trust of Respondent as their physician. When Respondent delivered the signed letter to Mr. McKnight, he told Respondent that he would not disburse any sums to Respondent without the consent of G.L. at the time of disbursement. G.L. later refused to honor the disbursement letter. Confronted with conflicting claims to nearly $12,000 of the settlement proceeds, Mr. McKnight interpleaded the sum in Orange County Circuit Court. Respondent has been disciplined twice previously. In a Final order dated February 27, 1984, Petitioner found Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(r), Florida Statutes, by unlawfully prescribing to himself two legend drugs, Nembutal and Ritalin. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $200 and placed Respondent on probation for one month. In a Final Order dated June 15, 1988, Petitioner found, Respondent guilty of various statutory violations concerning generally recordkeeping requirements with respect to controlled substances. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $1500, reprimanded his license, required him to attend 60 hours of Category I Continuing Medical Education courses in legal aspects of dispensing controlled substances, and restricted his license by prohibiting him from dispensing drugs in an office setting and maintaining drugs for the purpose of dispensing until he complied with certain conditions concerning recordkeeping requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating of Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for six months, and imposing an administrative fine of $5000. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-3 Adopted. 4 Adopted in substance. 5-7 Adopted. Adopted except as to the mischaracterization of the document as a promissory note. Rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, and recitation of testimony. Whether G.L. was able to read is beside the point. He was incapable of understanding the meaning of the document that he signed. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as cumulative and, to the extent not cumulative, irrelevant. 12-15 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 16-17 Adopted in substance. 18 Rejected as recitation of evidence and legal argument. 19-21 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate except that the first sentence of Paragraph 21 is adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected as cumulative and, to the extent not cumulative, irrelevant. Rejected as legal argument contrary to the cited statutory definition of the practice of medicine. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Respondent's proposed Findings 1-4 Adopted. 5-6 Rejected as subordinate. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant and, to the extent implying that G.L. understood the meaning of the document that he was signing, against the greater weight of the evidence. 9-10 Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 9 in preceding section. 11-14 Adopted. 15 Adopted in substance. 16-19 Adopted in substance except that the first sentence of Paragraph 16 is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 David G. Pius, Esq. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Joseph M. Taraska, Esq. Launa K. Cartwright, Esq. Taraska, Grower, Unger and Ketcham, P.A. Post Office Box 538065 Orlando, FL 32853-0065 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent was a 6th grade student at Mays Middle School in Dade County, Florida, during the 1987-88 school year. On June 14, 1988, another student informed the school's assistant principal that Respondent had in his possession a quantity of marijuana. Respondent was brought to the assistant principal. In the course of interrogating Respondent, the assistant principal momentarily left Respondent in the custody of a security officer. Upon returning to the room, the principal learned that Respondent had attempted to discard a foil packet, behind a filing cabinet. The packet was subsequently analyzed and found to contain one quarter to one half of an ounce of marijuana. Upon further questioning by the assistant principal, Respondent contended that he had found the contraband packet on the way to school and intended to sell the drug since his family needed the money. Thereupon, Respondent was suspended for the remaining two days of the school year and reassigned to the opportunity school program for the 1988-89 school year. In response to a telephone call by school administrators, Respondent's mother came to the school when he was apprehended for the possession of marijuana. Somewhat distraught about the incident, her major concern was what action would be taken in response to this behavior by her son. Previous conversations had been had between school officials and Respondent's mother regarding his attendance record and academic problems during the school year. The entire incident of Respondent's apprehension for possession of a controlled substance was reported to law enforcement officials for further investigation and appropriate legal action. During the course of the school year, Respondent has been absent a total of 36 days. His academic progress has been extremely poor resulting in final grades for the year of "F" in language arts, "D" in mathematics, "D" in French, "F" in reading and "F" in science. During the course of the school year, Respondent was seen by the school counselor a total of 12 times. Several of the counselling sessions were the result of Respondent's referral by his teachers for disruptive behavior. Other sessions resulted from teachers concern about Respondent's academic progress. Possible remedies for Respondent's academic needs and attendance problems are more likely to be realized in the smaller and more structured educational atmosphere of the opportunity school. Petitioner's district code of student conduct contains recommended disciplinary action for students found in possession of illegal mood modifiers. Mood modifiers are defined in the district code to mean all substances capable of producing a change in behavior or altering a state of mind or feeling. The code recommends that such students either be expelled or be suspended with a possible recommendation for administrative assignment to an opportunity school. In the absence of evidence other than Respondent's own admission of his intent to sell the marijuana, school officials elected to suspend Respondent and recommend assignment to an opportunity school. Respondent is presently attending the J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assigning Respondent to the J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder, Esquire 175 Fontainebleau Boulevard Suite 2A-3 Miami, Florida 33172 Clara Patino 19316 South West 121st Avenue Miami, Florida 33177 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Josesph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public School 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid teaching certificate from the State of Florida, number 512951. Respondent's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1993. Respondent is certified to teach elementary education. Respondent is employed by the Dade County Public School Board (the "School Board"). Respondent was employed as a teacher at Palm Springs Elementary School in Dade County, Florida ("Palm Springs") for the school years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991. On or about April 30, 1991, Detective Michael Segarra, a police officer in Pembroke Pines, Florida, was investigating a bank robbery in that city at the site of the robbery. Respondent approached Detective Segarra and gave him relevant information concerning two men who may have committed the robbery. Respondent was riding in an automobile with two men who said they were going to rob a bank. Respondent was able to get out of the car by telling the two men that she wanted to go into a McDonald's restaurant across the street from the bank for some orange juice. The two men let her out of the car, and Respondent hid from them. They returned after the robbery was committed, searched without success for Respondent, and left. Respondent walked across the street and gave Detective Segarra the information she had. Based upon Respondent's unusual demeanor and behavior, Detective Segarra asked if he could inspect Respondent's purse. Respondent consented to the search, and Detective Segarra found nine small plastic bags of cocaine and a small cigarette with 20 grams or less of cannabis. Respondent admitted to Detective Segarra that she had used both controlled substances. Detective Segarra did not arrest Respondent at the time of the consent search because Respondent agreed to help him trace the source of the cocaine and the whereabouts of the two men during the previous day and a half. Detective Segarra questioned Respondent further at the police department, took her written statement, and then dropped her off at her residence. 5/ An Information was filed against Respondent on July 24, 1990, for possession of cocaine and cannabis. Respondent pled guilty to both charges on December 5, 1990. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of $240 and placed on probation for two years. The terms of probation included random drug testing and regular drug evaluations. Respondent violated the terms of her probation by failing to timely pay her fine, by testing positive for cocaine, and by failing to report for regular drug evaluation. She was charged by affidavit dated February 15, 1991, with violating the terms of her probation. On April 5, 1991, Respondent pled guilty to violating her probation and to one count of possession of cocaine. Adjudication of guilt was again withheld, and her probation was revoked. Respondent was sentenced to two years of probation and required to complete a drug rehabilitation program at Mount Sinai Hospital. Respondent was removed from the classroom without pay sometime in August, 1990. She returned to the classroom in February, 1991, and was removed again without pay in April, 1991. Although Respondent has not returned to the classroom, the School Board never terminated her employment. She has remained on leave without pay for approximately a year and a half. 6/ Respondent is the first employee of the School Board to qualify for and participate in the Alternative Discipline Program (the "ADP"). The ADP is designed to rehabilitate employees with superior performance histories who have developed a chemical dependency and return them to the classroom as effective teachers. The program is adopted from a similar program developed at Mount Sinai Hospital for physicians with a chemical dependence. The ADP was developed in consultation with Dr. John Eustace, an addictionologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, and through the combined efforts of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), the School Board's Office Of Professional Standards, and the United Teachers of Dade (the "UTD"). Respondent entered the ADP on August 15, 1991. The ADP is a two year program that places qualified employees with a chemical dependence on leave without pay. If the participant has no connection with a chemical substance for a period of two years, there is a very strong possibility of permanent recovery. Approximately 80 percent of the individuals who have no connection with a chemical substance for two years recover permanently. A participant in the ADP is not entitled to utilize hardship benefits or extra pay benefits while on leave without pay but retains other fringe benefits, including hospitalization. During his or her leave, the participant is hospitalized and receives medical treatment. The participant is required to live in a halfway house, then a three-quarter house, and then to participate in programs of recovery such as Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") or Narcotics Anonymous ("NA"). If the participant completes that part of the program successfully, the participant is entitled to return to the classroom on a part time basis and then on a permanent basis subject to probation for a year or more. During probation, the participant's performance, attendance, and participation in a program of recovery is strictly monitored. The terms of probation require that the participant sign a letter of resignation and waiver of right to appeal any termination of employment if the participant fails to successfully complete the ADP. In order to participate in the ADP, an employee must enter into a written agreement in which he or she agrees to: participate in a drug screening program utilizing random urine and blood testing within 24 hours of notification; abstain from all mood altering substances, including alcohol, marijuana, crack/cocaine, over the counter preparations, stimulants, street drugs, and pharmaceuticals; participate in a structured chemical dependance program recommended by the EAP or designated program administrator; follow all recommendations of the treatment facility, including a residential long term treatment in a half-way house or other appropriate facility; participate in weekly aftercare upon completion of primary care at Mount Sinai Hospital; provide documentation of attendance at a minimum of five meetings a week at an appropriate program of recovery; obtain an AA or NA sponsor and complete a 12 step recovery program; encourage family members to attend their own 12 step support groups; utilize the comprehensive services available through EAP and the hospital for personal, physical, family, and stress related problems; seek part-time employment upon completion of the structured treatment program only with permission of the program; attend monthly monitoring conferences with a designated fitness supervisor, union representative, and EAP coordinator; and be responsible for all treatment fees not covered by insurance. A participant in the ADP further agrees to resign their employment and waive their right to appeal in the event the participant fails to successfully complete the terms of the ADP. Respondent is the first School Board employee to qualify for the ADP. Only teachers with good performance records qualify for the ADP. Prior to her substance abuse, Respondent had a good performance record. She was more than acceptable. She had very good performance evaluations and recommendations. Respondent executed the first written agreement utilized in the ADP. The written agreement executed by Respondent is substantially equivalent to but not identical to the form Settlement Agreement developed since Respondent entered the program. The form Settlement Agreement includes a letter of resignation which a participant must sign upon entering the ADP and which becomes effective immediately without appeal if the participant fails to complete the ADP successfully. Respondent has successfully completed the major portion of the ADP. She is currently eligible to return to the classroom as a substitute teacher for three days a week. If she successfully completes her part time employment, she will be eligible to return to full time teaching in August, 1992, on a probationary basis. Respondent will be required to execute a Settlement Agreement prior to returning to full time teaching on a probationary basis. Respondent, with the advice and consent of her attorney, agreed under oath during the formal hearing to immediately and voluntarily relinquish her teaching certificate if she failed to complete the remainder of the ADP. The ADP will not be successful if a participant has his or her teaching certificate revoked or suspended prior to completion of the program. Full time teaching on a probationary period for at least one year is an integral part of the ADP. If the participant has his or her teaching certificate revoked or suspended, he or she cannot complete the full time probationary phase of the ADP. Revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate would cause her to lose her continuing contract status. If she obtained a teaching certificate following revocation, she would be required sign an annual contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent be placed on probation pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(d), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the terms and conditions of Respondent's probation should be the same terms and conditions as those prescribed in the agreement entered into between Respondent and the Employee Assistance Program when Respondent entered the Alternative Discipline Program (the "ADP") and any additional terms and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement Respondent will be required to enter into upon resumption of full time employment. As a further condition of probation, it is recommended that Respondent be required to successfully complete the ADP and, in the event Respondent fails to do so, voluntarily and immediately resign her employment from the Dade County School Board and surrender her teaching certificate to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 19th of February 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 19th day of February 1992.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent’s Florida Educator’s Certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, FRANK T. BROGAN, as Florida Commissioner of Education, is statutorily responsible for maintaining teaching certification standards, and is authorized to enforce the provisions of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes. Respondent, JOEL M. BURKI, at all material times hereto, was a certified teacher in the State of Florida. STIPULATED FACTS Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 686763, covering the area of Art Education, which is valid through June 30, 1997. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an alternative education teacher at St. Pete Challenge School in the Pinellas County School District. During 1992, Respondent was reported to Professional Practices Services for allegedly using excessive force with students. On or about September 22, 1992, the Department of Education and Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement extending through the end of the first semester of the 1992-1993 school year. Respondent satisfactorily completed the agreement, and on or about April 9, 1993, the Commissioner issued a finding of no probable cause to take disciplinary action concerning his educator’s ceritficate. On or about January 30, 1996, the Pinellas County School District investigated Respondent for allegedly engaging in inappropriate conduct with students. The district subsequently reported Respondent to Professional Practices Services. On or about March 20, 1996, Respondent resigned his teaching position effective March 22, 1996. THE ALLEGED INCIDENT OF MISCONDUCT An incident occurred at the St. Pete Challenge School at some time shortly after January 26, 1996, in which five male students, aged nine-to-ten years old, fell down at the door outside Respondent’s art and music classroom. As a result of this incident one student suffered a cut lip, and one other complained of a headache. The students involved in this incident initially had been disrupting Respondent’s class prior to roll call. Respondent had instructed these students to wait outside the classroom door until Respondent attended to the remaining students in the classroom. Respondent then intended to address this disciplinary situation. The five misbehaving students were outside for a very short period of time when they observed another teacher approaching. Upon seeing the teacher approaching, the five students attempted to re-enter Respondent’s classroom; however, Respondent at this time was also opening the door from the other side. The force of Respondent opening the door caused a chain reaction resulting in the fall of the five students on the outside of the door. The injured students were taken to the front office for treatment. None of the injuries sustained was serious. Respondent did not intend to cause any physical contact with the five students, nor to cause any physical harm to the students. Respondent was not physically abusive to the five students involved in this incident. It is the policy of the Pinellas County School District that a teacher shall not use physical force upon a student absent extraordinary circumstances which require physical intervention for the protection of other students or school personnel. Respondent in this incident did not use physical force in a manner inconsistent with the policy of the Pinellas County School District. Respondent is considered mild-mannered, cordial, and friendly in both his professional and personal capacities. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT The Administrative Complaint filed in this matter alleged in paragraph 4 that "Respondent grabbed minor student J.M. and pushed him," and "Respondent also pushed minor student,” A.H. into other students causing A.H. and the other students to fall." No evidence was presented at final hearing to support these allegations; however, there was testimony from minor student, K.D., that Respondent pushed another of these students, B.W., which then caused the chain reaction fall. Petitioner, accordingly, made an ore tenus motion for leave to amend the administrative complaint to conform to the evidence. The student in question, B.W., testified at final hearing and did not state that Respondent pushed him. On cross- examination, B.W. testified that Respondent pushed some other unidentified student during the incident. There was no clear and consistent evidence that Respondent pushed any identified student including B.W. or A.H. during this incident. Another student involved in the incident, C.G., who also testified at final hearing, on cross-examination confirmed Respondent's account of this occurrence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire 501 First Avenue, Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mark Herdman, Esquire HERDMAN and SAKELLARIDES, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should award a contract to Intervenor to provide physical and occupational therapy services to approximately 1,300 exceptional education students who qualify for such services in 77 public schools in Brevard County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor is the incumbent contractor for physical and occupational therapy services provided to Respondent. Intervenor has provided such services to Respondent for approximately six years. On February 24, 1999, Respondent issued its request for proposals ("RFP") for occupational and physical therapy services. The RFP consists of eight unnumbered pages. Ten companies responded to the RFP. However, only the proposals of Petitioner and Intervenor are at issue in this proceeding. A four-member evaluation committee ranked each proposal on the basis of six categories. The six categories were: experience; qualification; recruiting ability; location of office; and responsiveness. The evaluation committee also considered the hourly rate and mileage to be charged by each proposer. The evaluation committee met as a body. Each member of the committee then returned to his or her respective office to complete a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet listed each proposer's name in a column down the left side of the sheet and the six categories for evaluation from left to right across the top of the sheet. A column down the right side of each sheet listed the hourly rate to be charged by the proposer identified in the column down the left side of the sheet. The RFP does not prescribe a scoring formula to be used in completing the scoring sheets. In relevant part, the RFP merely states: . . . The Selection Committee shall rank the firms in order of preference and will submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. All four members of the evaluation committee ranked Intervenor's proposal first and Petitioner's proposal second. However, the hourly rate in Petitioner's proposal was the lowest of all proposers, at $34.75, and $4.25 less than the $39 hourly rate quoted in the proposal submitted by Intervenor. The proposal submitted by Intervenor charged mileage in addition to the hourly rate while the hourly rate quoted by Petitioner included mileage. Before May 11, 1999, when the Board selected Intervenor as the proposer, the evaluation committee met. The committee asked Respondent's buyer assigned to the contract if the committee was required to recommend the proposal with the lowest price. The buyer advised the committee that the contract was for professional services and did not require the committee to recommend the lowest-priced proposal. The committee determined that Ms. Eva Lewis, one of its members and the Director of Program Support for Exceptional Student Education in Brevard County, should telephone Intervenor and ask if Intervenor would match Petitioner's price. Ms. Lewis telephoned Mr. Rick McCrary, the manager for Intervenor, and asked if Intervenor would accept the contract price of $34.75. After consultation with his superiors, Mr. McCrary agreed to the straight-rate price of $34.75. On May 11, 1999, Ms. Lewis presented the recommendation of the evaluation committee to the Board. The Board asked Ms. Lewis if Intervenor's price was the lowest price. Ms. Lewis disclosed that the evaluation committee preferred the proposal submitted by Intervenor, asked Intervenor to lower its price to meet that of Petitioner, and that Intervenor agreed to do so. The Board voted unanimously to select Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. The parties directed most of their efforts in this proceeding to the issues of whether competitive bidding requirements apply to the proposed agency action and whether the scoring formula used to rank the proposers complied with those requirements. Petitioner asserts that the selection of Intervenor by the Board violates the competitive bidding provisions in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated). Intervenor and Respondent contend that Section 120.57(1), rather than Section 120.57(3), controls the Board's selection of Intervenor for the contract. Although the document used by Respondent to obtain proposals from vendors describes itself as an RFP and describes the responses as either proposals or bids, Respondent and Intervenor suggest that the document is not an RFP but merely a "solicitation." Respondent and Intervenor further argue: . . . that the . . . Board . . . did not attempt to comply with the requirements for competitive procurement under Section 120.57(3) or Chapter 287. . . . And . . . that the . . . Board was never required to comply with those statutes. . . . these are contracts for professional, educational and health services, contracts uniquely and specifically exempted from [the] competitive bid procurement process. Transcript ("TR") at 40. It is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Section 120.57(1) or the competitive procurement provisions in Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 control Respondent's selection of Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. In either event, the proposed agency action is contrary to the specifications in the RFP. Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 do not apply to the contract at issue in this proceeding, Respondent failed to comply with RFP specifications. As Intervenor and Respondent point out in their joint PRO, Section F.8. of the RFP states: The . . . Board . . . and the selected proposer will negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions for submission to the . . . Board for consideration and approval. In the event an agreement cannot be reached with the selected proposer in a timely manner, then the . . . Board reserves the right to select an alternative proposer. (emphasis supplied) Intervenor and Respondent are also correct that the phrase "negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions" includes terms and conditions such as the contract price. Contrary to the provisions of Section F.8., the Board did not first select a proposer at its meeting on May 11, 1999, and then negotiate a contract price with the selected proposer. Rather, the evaluation committee negotiated a contract price with Intervenor before May 11, 1999, and the Board then selected Intervenor as the successful proposer. The evaluation committee is not the Board and does not have authority to act on behalf of the Board. As the RFP states, the evaluation committee has authority only to: . . . rank the firms in order of preference and . . . submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. The last sentence in Section F.8. makes clear that the right to select a proposer is the sole province of the Board and not the evaluation committee. Even if one were to ignore the legal distinctions between the evaluation committee and the Board and the authority of each, the RFP specifications fail to provide adequate notice to potential proposers of the true purpose for the RFP. As Respondent and Intervenor state in their joint PRO: . . . the . . . Board used the proposals it received to test the market for physical and occupational therapy services in Brevard County. The . . . Board then used the information it developed from the proposals as negotiating leverage to obtain a price concession from its incumbent contractor. The . . . Board's negotiation tactics permitted it to secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor. PRO at 33. The RFP fails to disclose that Respondent intended to use potential proposers to obtain negotiating leverage with the incumbent contractor. The failure of the RFP to disclose its purpose violates fundamental principles of due process, adequate notice, and fairness to potential proposers. It creates a gap between what agency staff knew of the Respondent's intent for the RFP and what potential proposers could know from reading the specifications in the RFP. The failure of the RFP to disclose its true purpose suggests that its authors recognized the chilling effect such a disclosure would have had on the response of potential proposers. The lack of responses from potential proposers, in turn, would have frustrated Respondent's intent to "secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor." Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) controls the contract award at issue in this proceeding, Respondent's proposed agency action violates relevant provisions in Section 120.57(3)(f). In relevant part, Section 120.57(3)(f) provides: In a competitive procurement contest, other than a rejection of all bids, the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules, or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary, or capricious. . . . (emphasis supplied) As previously found, the proposed award of the contract to Intervenor is contrary to the RFP specifications, including specifications for the evaluation and selection process described in paragraphs 7 and 17, supra. The proposed agency action is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). It violates fundamental notions of due process, adequate notice, and a level playing field for all proposers. All of the proposers who were induced by the terms of the RFP to expend the time, energy, and expense required to prepare and submit proposals were entitled to rely in good faith on the specifications in the RFP and to require Respondent to adhere to its own specifications. The proposed agency action is also contrary to competition within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). The economic incentive to respond to an RFP would likely diminish over time if the proposed agency action were to persist. Potential proposers would eventually recognize the RFP process as a device intended to reduce the contract price of the incumbent provider rather than as a bona fide business opportunity for potential proposers to gain new market share. Such an economic environment would not likely induce potential proposers to incur the time and expense necessary to prepare and submit proposals. The pool of potential proposers would shrink, and Respondent would lose negotiating leverage with the incumbent vendor. The likely result would be an erosion of negotiating leverage and an accretion in costs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the selection of Intervenor for the contract award is contrary to the RFP specifications and contrary to competition. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 3rd day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. David Sawyer, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699 Harold Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier, Miniclier and Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Cocoa, Florida 32922 Jonathan Sjostram, Esquire Steel Hector and Davis, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward J. Kinberg, Esquire Edward J. Kinberg, P.A. 2101 South Waverly Place Suite 200E Melbourne, Florida 32901
