The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's contract for immorality, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code; misconduct in office, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code; and incompetency, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent came to the United States from British Guyana in 1977. In 1988, Respondent obtained an educator's certificate and began teaching in Dade County. Petitioner hired him in 1992 and assigned him to Silver Lakes Middle School. For several years, Respondent taught language arts, which is the area in which he is certified, to all grades. Petitioner later assigned Respondent to teach students in the dropout prevention program at Silver Lakes Middle School. The students in the dropout prevention program typically represent greater academic challenges to a teacher than do their counterparts in regular education. For the past five or six years, Respondent taught dropout prevention at Silver Lakes Middle School. His teaching approach is to try to develop rapport with the students during the first nine weeks of the school year while, at the same time, identify specific areas of weakness within each student that may require attention during the school year. On October 17, 2001, Respondent administered a diagnostic test to identify areas in which students needed work. Unable to answer some of the questions, some students asked Respondent for help. Respondent declined to help because his assistance would destroy the purpose of the test. Some of the students began to misbehave. After several attempts by Respondent to control these students, they threatened to go to the office and complain about Respondent. Respondent invited the students to go to the office and complain about him. He wrote passes for several students, and several more students joined the others to visit the office, rather than take the test, and complain to an administrator about Respondent. The principal received the students in her office and listened to their complaints, which appear to have been the source of the allegations in this case. The principal took statements from the students and then returned with them to Respondent's classroom. While in the classroom, the principal helped the students with the diagnostic test that Respondent had been administering. Recognizing that the diagnostic value of his test was lost, Respondent then joined the principal in helping the students with their diagnostic test. Prominent among the students' complaints to the principal was that Respondent had struck a student, J. H. Petitioner produced little direct evidence supporting this allegation. Twice, J. H. ignored subpoenas to testify in this case. Respondent testified that J. H. later admitted to him that other boys in the class made him lie and say that Respondent hit him. J. H.'s failure to comply with subpoenas is consistent with Respondent's testimony. Absent J. H.'s testimony, it is difficult to determine exactly what, if anything, happened with him and Respondent. The most likely scenario is that J. H. succumbed to the pressures of other students in the class and lied that Respondent had hit him, knowing that the only contact that had taken place between Respondent and J. H. was incidental contact during a minor incident of horseplay. Three of the four student witnesses whom Petitioner called to substantiate the charges were unconvincing. The fourth--J. G.--was vague and unable or unwilling to supply evidence against Respondent, whom he described as "the nicest man." Student D. S. testified at the hearing that Respondent ignored the students' questions in class about classroom material, called J. H. "peanut head," called "Jarvis" "bumbleclot," told D. S. that he lacked motivation and was lazy, and told other students that they came to school looking like a "bum." "Bumbleclot" appears to be a derogatory term in a Jamaican patois, although the record does not establish the intended or actual effect that any use of the word would have in Respondent's class. When handed a previous statement, D. S. added to his complaints that Respondent often said "bloody" in class and would . . . like nudge [J. H.], like, hit him in the arm." D. S. also recalled that Respondent said "cock-eyed" in class. D. S. admitted that he never heard Respondent threaten to "pop" a student. Discrepancies exist between D. S.'s testimony and his prior statements. First, he initially omitted the most significant allegation--that Respondent struck J. H.--and, when he later mentioned it, he downplayed it to a "nudge." Likewise, D. S. initially omitted any mention of Respondent's use of "bloody." Also, D. S. never mentioned Respondent's use of "bumbleclot" in his previous statements. D. S.'s testimony establishes the unlikelihood that Respondent actually hit J. H. or that he ever threatened to "pop" a student in class. Student J. P. testified that she heard other students say that Respondent pushed D. V. out the door of the portable classroom after ejecting him from class. Due to J. P.'s admitted failure to have observed the incident, the Administrative Law Judge struck the testimony. However, despite admitting that she did not see this incident, J. P. stated that she went to the office with other students and informed the principal of the incident. J. P. also testified that Respondent often said "bloody" and refused to explain all of an assignment to her after she missed school, which she admitted happened frequently. Lastly, J. P. complained that Respondent issued her a referral for going to the bathroom. In addition to missing school, J. P. was often tardy when returning from various errands, and many times she did not do her work. J. P.'s testimony establishes only that Respondent may have said "bloody" a few times in class. Student J. G. testified that he recalled Respondent using "hell or damn" in class, although, on cross-examination, he denied any recollection of any use of either of these words. J. G. testified that he heard Respondent say something about knocking a student into next week, although he could not recall whether the latter comment was made in jest. J. G. added that he saw Respondent give J. H. "a little hit." Student D. V. testified that he saw Respondent hit J. H., although his description of the conversation accompanying the incident was materially different at the hearing than in a previous statement. D. V. testified that Respondent threatened to "pop" students and told them to "shut [their] bloody mouths." D. V. added that he asked Respondent one time if he could call his mother to bring his medication for attention deficit disorder, and Respondent denied him permission to make the call. D. V. also testified that Respondent, while sitting beside the door, pushed D. V. on the shoulder to get him out of the classroom, and D. V. responded by warning that he would get his sister to "kick [Respondent's] ass." Although D. V.'s testimony is not undermined by the inconsistencies plaguing the testimony of D. S. and J. P., D. V. shares the antipathy of these other two students for Respondent. Each of these students resented Respondent's efforts to discipline and teach them. Each of these students betrayed a desire to act in concert to get Respondent in trouble, as they felt he had gotten them into trouble. Respondent called as a witness one student, W. L., who testified forcefully that she heard the other students coercing J. H. to say falsely that Respondent had hit him. W. L. testified that the only improper word that she heard Respondent use was "bloody" and that Respondent and J. H. engaged in some horseplay in class. Perhaps the most useful witness was an assistant principal at Silver Lakes Middle School. At the end of the 2001-02 school year, the assistant principal completed an evaluation of Respondent in which he assigned him a satisfactory rating, which is the highest, in all categories, including classroom management. It is clear from the testimony of the assistant principal that he gave the complaints of Respondent's students exactly the weight that they deserved. Respondent admitted that he used "bloody" in class, but the record fails to develop the appreciation of his students for the intensity of this word in certain non-American cultures. Respondent admitted that he once used the phrase, "pop you one," but the record fails to develop the context so as to preclude the likelihood that Respondent said these words in jest. Respondent admitted that he used "cock-eyed," "skinny boy," and "bony boy," but, again, the record fails to establish a context as to permit a finding that these terms were abusive or disparaging. Respondent, who is black, mentioned that he had been called "black nugget" and "kiwi," but only as part of an effort to develop tolerance for names among students eager to take offense. Respondent ejected D. V. from the classroom for legitimate reasons. According to D. V. himself, any followup contact was with Respondent in the seated position, so as not likely to have been significant. According to another student, D. V. grabbed Respondent. At most, the record depicts an angry, disruptive student who has stubbornly refused to comply with his teacher's ejection of him from the classroom, so that other students have a chance to learn. Likewise, D. V.'s complaint that Respondent denied him the chance to call his mother for his attention deficit medication suffers for the lack of context. Undoubtedly, D. V. joined in ongoing efforts to disrupt the class and avoid receiving instruction. The only context for this request provided by the record is that D. V. asked for permission immediately after returning from lunch, when he would have had ample opportunity to call his mother. Although it is possible that D. V. first thought of the missing medication after lunch, it is at least as likely that he thought of the missing medication as a convenient excuse to extend his mid-day respite from learning. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, or immorality.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen M. Rodriguez Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Mark F. Kelly Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner was the official responsible for the certification of teachers and educational professionals in this state. The Respondent was certified as a teacher in Florida by certificate No. 615085, covering the areas of guidance, physical education and health education, and which is valid through June 30, 1993. During the 1990 - 1991 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher of exceptional education math and social studies at Charles R. Drew Middle School, a school under the administration of the School Board of Dade County. Respondent has taught for between 11 and 12 years and took the course in crisis prevention and intervention offered by the National Crisis Preventon Institute in 1988. In September, October and November, 1991, Respondent was teacing exceptional math and social science to classes of between 4 and 7 students, all of whom were classified as either educable mentally handicapped, learning disabled, or emotionally handicapped. He had neither teaching aides nor assistants. In order to keep the class size small, the instructors in these classes were required to forego their planning period and spend that period in the classroom setting. On or about September 26, 1991, between the 4th and 5th class periods, Respondent was standing out in the hallway of the school, positioned in such a way that he could monitor the students' behavior in the hall as well as in his classroom. He heard a confrontation arise between K.G., a minor male student, and M.B., a minor female student. He went into the room and saw the two students screaming at and hitting each other. Though he told them to quiet down, they did not do so and he stepped in and broke up the fight, sending each student to his/her respective seat. Since their seats were near to each other in the back of the room, he removed K.G. to the front to the room to put as much distance between them as was possible. The two students still continued their verbal assaults on each other regardless of his efforts so he again stepped in and settled them down. Having determined that the argument arose out of M.B.'s accidentally stepping on K.G.'s sore foot, he advised K.G. that hitting was no basis for settling any dispute. K.G. allegedly responded that he hit anyone he wanted at any time. As Respondent subsequently crossed the room, he accidentally bumped K.G's foot which, he claims, K.G. shoved out in front of him. When he did, K.G. came out of his chair, struck Respondent twice in the stomach, and kicked him in the shin. K.G., who was not present to testify, claimed that Respondent intentionally stepped on his foot. This evidence is hearsay and no other direct evidence on the matter was offered. It is found, therefore, that if Respondent did come in contact with K.G.'s foot, the contact was accidental and not intentional. Regardless of the prompting, there is little question that K.G. struck the Respondent in the stomach and when he did, Respondent, applying the techniques for crisis prevention and intervention he had been taught, took K.G. to the floor with his arm behind him and sent another student for security. As a result of this altercation, K.G. was not injured at all but Respondent had to see a doctor for the blows to the stomach and the kick to the shins. He was given two days off from work to recuperate and offered more if he needed it. From that point on, K.G., who within two weeks of the incident, handed Respondent a letter of apology, was one of the best behaved students in the class. In addition, he was one of the two students who gave Respondent a Christmas present that year. He was subsequently removed from Respondent's class and from the school, but that departure was voluntary and had nothing to do with the altercation described above. When the matter was reported to Ms. Annunziata, the school board's Director of Professional Standards, she decided that an administrative review of the incident was sufficient action. The memorandum of understanding between Respondent and the school principal, Ms. Grimsley, regarding the incident, referred him to procedures for handling student discipline and commented on the need to use sound judgement and call school security before a situation escalated into a physical confrontation between the teacher and a student. Less than a month later, on October 15, 1991, Respondent was putting some information on the blackboard during class when another student, A.C. came up and stood beside him close enough to interfere with his work. He moved to another section of the board, and noting that A.C. had a toothpick in his mouth, directed him to resume his seat and remove the toothpick. A.C. did as he was told, but immediately came back up and stood beside the Respondent with another toothpick in his mouth. Again Respondent directed the student to sit down and take the toothpick out of his mouth, and the student did as told. However, he shortly again came up to stand near Respondent at the board with a toothpick in his mouth, so close as to cause concern in Respondent for the safety of his eye. Having already told the student to sit down and remove the toothpick twice without lasting success, Respondent reached over and took the tooth pick out of the student's mouth. A.C. claims that in doing so, Respondent grabbed his lips, but this is doubtful. The other student called to testify about this incident was not clear on details and it is found that while Respondent removed the toothpick from A.C.'s mouth, he did not grab the student's lips. In any case, however, the student reacted violently. Respondent again told the student to sit down but he refused and shouted he was leaving. Respondent asked another student to go for security since there was neither an intercom system nor a workable phone in the room, but no one did. A.C. started out of the room and on his way, veered over to where the Respondent stood and struck him in the rib cage with his elbow. At this Respondent, again using the CPI techniques he had been taught, took A.C. down to the floor and, holding the student's arms behind his back, opened the door and called for help. A teacher from another classroom came into the room and took A.C. to the school office. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Grimsley, the Principal, heard a teacher trying to calm A.C. down after what she was told was an incident with the Respondent. In her discussion with the student he told her that Respondent had hit him in the mouth, thrown him to the floor, and pulled his arm up behind his back. An investigation into this incident was reportedly conducted by the school administration. Thereafter, a conference was held in the Dade County Schools' Office of Professional Standards, attended by Respondent; Ms. Grimsley; Ms. Menendez, Coordinating Principal; the Union representative; and Ms. Annunziata, Director of the Office of Professional Standards, to discuss, inter alia, this alleged battery and Board policies and rules regarding discipline. A copy of the report was given the Respondent and he was afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations. He denied using intentional restraint on A.C., and when asked why he had not called security, pointed out that all prior efforts to seek security assistance were met with no response. Thereafter, on February 26, 1991, he was administered a letter of reprimand by Ms. Grimsley. This reprimand indicated he had violated the provisions of the teacher contract as well as the School Board Rules and that he was being rated as unacceptable in Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, of the TADS. Neither the memo of the conference nor the letter of reprimand reflect any specific findings of fact regarding the incident. Only the conclusion that Respondent inappropriately disciplined a student is listed as a reason for the reprimand. Respondent accepted the Reprimand on March 1, 1991 without exception. A.C.'s disciplinary record for the months of the pertinent school year prior to the incident in question, maintained by school authorities, reflects that on September 5, 1990, he was the subject of a parent conference because of his general disruptive conduct and his defiance of school authority. On September 19, 1990 he was found guilty of fighting; on October 11, 1990, reprimanded for general disruptive conduct; on October 23, 1990, reprimanded for defiance of school authority; and on October 30, 1990, suspended for the use of provocative language. This is not the picture of a young man who would reasonably feel mistreated by a teacher who stood up to him. Respondent continuously maintains he did not initiate any physical contact with the student nor did he intend to use physical restraint. He made that clear at the conference in early February. Yet he was apparently not believed though the student's disciplinary record would tend to support Respondent's recollection of the incident. Dade County Schools prohibit the use of corporal punishment and allows restraint only for the protection of students or teachers. The application of these guidelines must be effected with common sense and a recognition of the empirics of the situation, however. Under the circumstances Respondent's actions do not appear inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter be dismissed. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 5th day of June, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0176 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Third sentence rejected as not supported by competent evidence of record. 7. Rejected as argument and contra to the weight of the evidence. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. In an interview with Mr. Kerr after this incident, as per her testimony at hearing, Ms. Grimsley related that he indicated he asked K.G. what he would do if he, Kerr, stepped on K.G.'s foot. When she indicated she thought to challenge a student like that was an error in judgement, he agreed, but at no time did he indicate he had stepped on K.G.'s foot. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the incident was repeated three times before Mr. Kerr removed the toothpick from A.C.'s mouth. Accepted and incorporated herein with the modification that A.C. was standing very close to Respondent at the time the toothpick was removed and was not in his seat. & 18. Accepted in part. The better evidence indicates that A.C. left the room only after assaulting Mr. Kerr by hitting him in the stomach. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted in part. An inquiry was made, but only the ultimate conclusion was presented to the Hearing Officer. Neither the report of investigation nor specific findings of fact were presented. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Ms. Annunziata's opinion. The policy was not introduced into evidence. All cases of physical contact might well not constitute a violation. Accepted. This was not found to have happened, however. For the Respondent: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but what was in the Respondent's mind - his purpose - is unknown. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. A.C.'s partial disciplinary record has been incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Du Fresne, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 George A. Bowen, Acting Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Neil A. Merica, committed the offenses alleged to have begun in 1994 through 1999 as stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of the witnesses while testifying; the documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); stipulations and arguments of the parties; and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant, material, and ultimate facts, arrived at impartially, based solely upon the extensive evidence adduced at the final hearing, are determined: Respondent's Qualification and Teaching Experiences Mr. Merica holds a degree in speech communication from the University of South Florida. He is also certified in specific learning disabilities (SLD) by that institution. Early in his 13-year tenure as a teacher at Foster Elementary School (Foster), he acquired a degree in computer science from Florida Metropolitan University. Mr. Merica holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 532934, covering areas of English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), SLD,2 and Speech. His Florida Educator's Certificate expired June 30, 2003. As of the date of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. Mr. Merica also holds a teaching certificate from New Hampshire. Mr. Merica has a very demonstrative and expressive personality. His voice, when speaking at his normal conversational tone, resounds from the back of his throat in a louder than average volume. During his testimony, the pitch of his voice and his rapid speech pattern was accompanied by an unexpected and sudden outburst of spastic energy. Hillsborough County School Board's "Pull-out" Classroom Policy In 1987, the Hillsborough County School Board (Board) operated a Pull-out Classroom Policy (Pull-out Policy) for SLD and Physically Impaired (PI) students. Pursuant to the Board's Pull-out Policy, SLD and PI students were pulled out of their regular classes, divided into various numbered groups, and sent to a designated "resource" class teacher during the school day. Respondent's Initial Teaching Assignment Under the Pull-out Policy in 1987-1988 Mr. Merica began teaching at Foster as a SLD resource class teacher in October 1987 when the Board's Pull-out Policy was in effect. A resource teacher is the teacher whose class consisted of SLD students who were "pulled out" of regular classes of non-SLD students and sent to a resource class consisting of all SLD students for teaching and instruction. In 1989, the Board changed its Pull-out Policy to a "Self- contained" Classroom Policy (Self-contained Policy). The Self- contained Policy was designed to keep all SLD students together in one identified class throughout the school year. Mr. Merica taught SLD students under the Self-contained Policy at Foster until the 1992-1993 school year. Beginning at the start of the 1992-1993 school year, Foster's administration assigned Mr. Merica to teach a resource class consisting of PI and Learning Disabled Resource (LDR) students. PI classes consisted of students with a variety of physical impairments, including students who required various assistance devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, braces and "talkers," a machine device that assists the student with speaking difficulties to communicate. Mr. Merica continued as a PI and LDR teacher from the 1992-1993 school year through the 1998-1999 school year. Foster Elementary Exceptional Student Education Student Population from 1998 to 2000 During the two-year period of the 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000 school years, Foster had a large exceptional student education (ESE) population among its general student population. Foster's ESE community population consisted of 22 units, composed of full-time ESE students. There were six units of mentally handicapped students, with mental handicaps ranging from severe and profound mentally handicapped to mild emotionally mentally handicapped. There were four units of autistic students and four units of PI students. Foster had approximately five units of early exceptional learning programs, and three units of SLD students. Policy Change to Self-Contained Classes in 1998-1999 During the fall of the 1998-1999 school year, the Board changed their Pull-out Policy for SLD and PI students to a Self- contained Policy. The Self-contained Policy was instituted because of the severity of the students' learning disabilities, their struggles with academics, and the administration's conviction that the daily routine of shifting the SLD and PI students from "regular class to resource class" did not sufficiently address the students' individual learning disabilities and individual educational needs. Foster's administration identified students whom they believed did not handle transition well and recommended them as candidates for self-contained classes. The primary objective of the administration was to provide more "direct teaching time" and "direct teaching services" to each SLD or PI student. In the self-contained classes, SLD and PI students were assigned to one class and one teacher with a teacher's aide and/or a Department of Education for Exceptional Students (DEES) attendant throughout the day. The teacher's aides were those persons who were permitted to assist, under the oversight of the teacher, the classroom teacher with all facets of teaching, instruction, and classroom control. The DEES attendants were those persons whose duties consisted primarily of assisting the teacher by attending to individual and personal needs of SLD and PI students, i.e. changing their clothing, providing restroom assistance, etc. Respondent's 1999-2000 Reassignment to Teach Self-contained SLD Class In mid 1998, Brenda Griffin (Principal Griffin) was appointed principal of Foster replacing Janice Payne, f/k/a Pils (Principal Payne). At the start of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin changed Mr. Merica from his PI and LDR class and assigned him to teach a self-contained class of SLD students. A self-contained SLD class is a class composed of SLD students, each of whom has an individual educational plan (IEP) designed as the teacher's guide to assist in teaching each student to achieve specific, individual, and predetermined educational goals. Each IEP is developed by joint agreement of the SLD student's parent, his/her teacher and the assigned therapist (teacher). The IEP also identifies special educational services and supports that may be necessary to achieve desired outcomes and short-term objectives, and it establishes student educational benchmarks. An IEP may or may not contain daily, weekly or monthly checklists to evaluate a student's progress in achieving the benchmarks contained in his or her IEP. To make an objective determination of whether a student with an IEP has made progress (advanced from or to an ascertainable educational position), knowledge of the educational benchmarks contained in the student's IEP are essential. During the earlier years as a teacher at Foster, Mr. Merica served as the school's Classroom Teacher's Association (CTA) representative. In this capacity, he would address and argue those issues he believed to have had direct impact upon teachers who were members of the CTA. Mr. Merica attributed many of the comments made during staff meetings to addressing issues he believed had an impact upon teacher members of the CTA. During the 1997-1998 school year and after lengthy discussions with Principal Payne, but before Principal Griffin was appointed principal, Mr. Merica resigned as CTA representative. In September of 2000 and after 13 years of annual employment contract renewals, the Board terminated Mr. Merica's employment. At the time of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. In this proceeding, the Commissioner seeks to permanently revoke Mr. Merica's right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. The Amended Administrative Complaint The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged specific instances of specific conduct, specific acts, and specific speech to have occurred at unspecified dates and at unspecified times during a five-year span of time from 1994 through 1999. Accordingly, only incidents specifically alleged and proven by evidence of record to have occurred on or after January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1999, are considered in determining whether the Commissioner proved each allegation charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. STATUTE VIOLATIONS Count 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has proved to be incompetent to teach or perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school. Count 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving mortal turpitude. Count 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Count 4: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS Count 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Count 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Count 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination. WHEREFORE, Petitioner recommends that the Education Practices Commission impose an appropriate penalty pursuant to the authority provided in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes, which penalty may include a reprimand, probation, restriction of the authorized scope of practice, administrative fine, suspension of the teaching certificate not to exceed three years, permanent revocation of the teaching certificate, or combination thereof, for the reasons set forth herein, and in accordance with the Explanation and Election of Rights forms. Amendment to Amended Administrative Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error. On December 24, 2003, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error, which was granted and provided the following: On November 6, 2003, Petitioner Amended the Administrative Complaint in this matter. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint should be further amended to correct the scrivener's error. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint currently states: "During the 1998-99 school year, Respondent sexually harassed several different co- workers." That portion of Paragraph 5 should be amended to state: "Between 1994 and 1999, Respondent sexually harassed several different co-workers," to conform the time period for the allegations of Paragraph 5 with the time period for the allegations of all other paragraphs of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Janice Payne, Principal at Foster from 1987-1998 Principal Payne was principal at Foster from May 1987 to May 1998. An illness forced her to retire midyear in the 1997-1998 school year. After Principal Payne’s retirement, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. Principal Griffin held that position during the time of this hearing. During Principal Payne's 1987 to 1998 tenure as principal at Foster and as required by statute, she performed yearly evaluations of Mr. Merica's professional performance as a teacher of SLD and PI students. Consideration was given to annual performance evaluations for the 1994-1995 and 1998-1999 school years. During the 1994-1995 through 1997-1998 school years, Principal Payne identified, in her annual evaluations of Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, specific areas in which she independently determined Mr. Merica was in need of professional growth and improvement. At the end of each of those four evaluation periods, she met with Mr. Merica and discussed and identified for him those specific areas in which he was in need of professional growth and improvement. She provided him with specific, constructive advice and assistance to facilitate his professional growth and improvement as a professional teacher in the areas she identified. Undisputed evidence established that Mr. Merica accepted Principal Payne's constructive advice and assistance; he complied and implemented her suggestions in each area identified as in need of growth and improvement, and he grew and improved his performance in each identified area. It is noted, however, that Mr. Merica would sometimes suffer relapses and revert into his old pattern of voicing his personal opinions on a variety of subjects, described by Principal Payne as just: "talking up and rumoring everybody." Even with his propensity to occasionally "talk up and rumor everybody," Principal Payne concluded that he was a very good teacher and that he could be better. Principal Payne's methodology of assisting her young professional teachers' growth was to identify areas in need of improvement followed by personal conferences with each teacher explaining areas in need of improvement, making individualized suggestions tailored to the need(s) of the teacher, and, after an appropriate time interval, completing a follow-up assessment to evaluate the teacher's growth, improvement, and compliance with her suggestions. The record evidence demonstrated the existence of a professional and respectful relationship between Principal Payne and Mr. Merica, spanning the eight or more years they worked together, including the few occasions when there were disagreements. 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation of Mr. Merica In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE co-worker. Nevertheless, when Principal Payne evaluated his overall professional teaching performance for the 1998-1999 school year, including his personal conduct, she gave him a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments. Principal Payne made her independent written evaluation of Mr. Merica without assistance of any criteria or standards, other than as indicated on the evaluation form.3 In reaching her independent assessment of Mr. Merica's proficiency and effectiveness, scoring them on the characteristics and numerical scale indicated, she relied upon his teachings, his problems, and his improvements experienced. Her professional judgment of Mr. Merica was based upon her personal observation and day-to-day association with her teachers. Mr. Merica's 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation is the most accurate, reliable, and undisputed evidence of his competence and overall professional performance as a teacher during the 1998-1999 school year. There is no credible evidence of record that Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct evidencing either a past, an onset or a continuation of professional incompetence as a teacher in the school system during the 1998-1999 period covered by Principal Payne's annual evaluation. In response to the general inquiry of “whether or not her previous discussions and her prior improvement expectations of Mr. Merica as a teacher over the [unidentified] years were successful,” Principal Payne, convincingly, testified: Yes, temporarily, absolutely. My philosophy about Mr. Merica--first of all, he could be a good teacher if he wanted to be because I have observed him. I know that. He could behave if he wanted to. He could be a strong staff member. But, you know, he could do that probably for maybe four months or five months and all of a sudden it was just--he was just doing the same old thing, just going around, talking to everyone, rumoring people or getting rumors to people. It's just like this school was his life. Continuing, Ms. Payne testified: Mr. Merica would frequently apologize and realize what he had done was wrong, because at one time he's like a lamb and help to do whatever he can do and other times he just be so angry and upset to the point of where I said his behavior would frighten me. As the professional supervisor who worked with Mr. Merica for more than a ten-year period, Principal Payne was the most experienced and most knowledgeable person from years of hands-on experiences to have observed "the beginning of professional teaching incompetence that was not responsive to assistance provided by other professionals and continued unabated throughout her tenure." The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony and documentation of Principal Payne, "a beginning of demonstrated professional incompetence in 1994" or even as late as the school year of 1996-1997, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Based on the testimony of Principal Payne, it is a reasonable inference, and I infer, that the "behavior of anger" sometimes demonstrated by Mr. Merica in Principal Payne's presence was directed toward the subject matter of "what he had done was wrong" and not directed toward the person of Principal Payne. Through the above testimony, the Commissioner failed to prove that between 1994 and 1998-1999, Respondent was insubordinate and confrontational towards Principal Payne during her tenure as principal. The Commissioner failed to prove the allegation that Mr. Merica's personal conduct began to demonstrate "incompetence" as a professional teacher during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year of the 1997-1998 school years while Principal Payne was principal of Foster. A review of the record demonstrated, and the undersigned so finds, that no other witness called by the Commissioner provided credible, material and substantive evidence, based on personal knowledge contradicting the testimony of Principal Payne, that related to Mr. Merica's professional "teaching skills" during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year 1997-1998 school years. Brenda Griffin Principal at Foster Elementary beginning in 1998 After the 1997-1998 midyear resignation of Principal Payne, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. The professional relationship between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica became tense, and, based upon the collective testimonies of teachers and administrative staff members hereinafter, the tension was known by both the professional staff and administrative employees at Foster Elementary. Principal Griffin recalled that during her first year as principal at Foster (approximately the latter half of the 1997-1998 school year), she made an unannounced visit to Mr. Merica's self-contained classroom of PI students. Recalling her visit, she testified: [T] hey [students], all had IEPs that have specific goals for each student and what I observed was group instruction, but I felt like the PI students were not being stimulated. (Emphasis added) There is no record evidence of the particular teaching materials being used by Mr. Merica during this single visit. There is no record evidence establishing ascertainable professional expectations or teaching standards below which Mr. Merica was performing during Principal Griffin's initial visit. There is no record evidence of specific educational benchmarks or educational goals contained in the PI students' IEPs. Within the situational circumstances of this one visit as testified to, Principal Griffin's conclusiory opinion that Mr. Merica's "PI students were not being stimulated" lacks an objective benchmark for evaluation, as well as any reasonable degree of reliability to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the matter sought to be established. Continuing, Principal Griffin testified: Mr. Merica would go to the board, where there may or may not have been written some vocabulary words, and he would start some kind of instruction and I felt that was because I was in the room--sometimes the aides would get up to work with the kids and sometimes not, and I was sure they were waiting on the direction from their teacher at that time. (Emphasis added) Principal Griffin recalled another separate incident, but omitted providing the month or year, when she "observed Mr. Merica sitting at his computer--she "did not know what he was doing at his computer"--but she had been in his classroom on a previous (unidentified time) occasion when a golf game was on the computer and she--"knows that he was not tending to the students." Principal Griffin's conclusions, her feelings, and her opinions in findings 24 and 26 herein above, minus evidence of the situational circumstances surrounding each incident, lack reasonable reliability to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin also recalled (unspecified) occasion(s) on which she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom. She characterized those observations as having seen Mr. Merica: verywhere- in the hallways, in the lunchroom, at the PE field, in the back of the school--in the ESE wing building, where the buses are for the kids, in the clinic, in the office, everywhere-at any period of time during the day. There is no record evidence of personal knowledge by the witness or evidence of the situation and/or circumstances that caused Mr. Merica to be outside his classroom on those occasions when he was observed by this witness. The witness' summary characterization, "everywhere-at any period of time during the day," lacks certainty, reasonableness, and a degree of believable reliability to produce a firm belief as to the accuracy of the matters to which she testified. Viewed most favorably, Principal Griffin's testimony failed to establish that on each of those occasions she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom; his presence outside his classroom was not within the scope of his professional responsibilities and duties as a professional staff member at Foster. The credibility of this witness is further diminished by her exaggerated testimony of facts at issue. This testimony and the intended inference that his absence from his classroom caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning, lack essential details to provide a reasonable degree of reliability and cast insurmountable doubt as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin testified she talked with Mr. Merica about not being in his classroom and he told her: [H]e needed a break or that it was his break time and that his aides were in the classroom and they were capable of instructing his students. Mr. Merica disputed and denied making the particular statement, i.e. "that his aides were capable of instructing his students." His version of the reason(s) for absences from his classroom were reasonable explanations(s) corroborated by other witnesses as found infra. Even if Mr. Merica's denial of the inferred accusation is unbelievable, it does not prove the accusation by the Commissioner to the contrary. The acceptable and unacceptable reasons or situations a teacher may or may not be out of his or her classroom, and personal knowledge of those unacceptable occasions that Mr. Merica was not in his classroom, were not established through the testimony of Principal Griffin. The evidence does not support the frequency or extent of her assertions but, instead, casts doubt on the accuracy of the witness' testimony. The Commissioner failed to prove through the testimony of this witness that on each occasion Mr. Merica was observed outside his classroom, his presence was unreasonable, unprofessional, and caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning. Principal Griffin testified, unconvincingly, regarding another incident (again with no record evidence of the month, school year or the situational circumstances) that "a mother" called her to bring to her attention "that the teacher was not using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The witness did not provide the mother's identity. The witness did not provide the child's identity. The witness did not provide the teacher's identity though those three persons were allegedly involved in this undocumented incident. The presumed inference(s) that Mr. Merica was "the teacher" referred to by the unidentified mother, who (inappropriately) disciplined "a child" by taking away the unidentified child's touch-talker, is unreasonable. The vague, non-specific testimony of this witness, and her inability and/or her refusal to identify the mother, the child, and the teacher, create an unacceptable level of credibility due to the absence of three significant points of identity. The credibility of this witness' testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony by other witnesses, and the witness' credibility disappeared because no recording was made of such an important call from a parent to the principal of a school. The testimony by this witness does not establish or corroborate other testimony regarding the issue of "some teacher using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The Commissioner, through the testimony of this witness, failed to demonstrate that Mr. Merica "inappropriately disciplined a student," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The testimony of this witness, based solely on debatable expressions as her personal "feelings" and personal "opinions" regarding alleged conduct in the past reflected in findings 24 through 32 herein above, viewed most favorably, lacked reasonable reliability and substantial weight to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Respondent's 1998-1999 Personnel Performance Evaluation At the end of the 1998-1999 school year and notwithstanding her testimony in findings numbered 24 through 32 above, Principal Griffin, independently, determined that Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, to include his personal conduct and, by reasonable and objective implication, his teaching competence, was satisfactory in every category for the 1998-1999 school year. The overall "satisfactory" performance evaluation given Mr. Merica by Principal Griffin for his professional teaching competence and personal conduct in the 1998-1999 school year is significant when juxtaposed to her testimony at the final hearing. As late as May 1999, this witness' independent evaluation of Mr. Merica's professional teaching competence and his personal conduct was reflected on his 1998-1999 performance evaluation as "all satisfactory." However, the testimony contained in Findings of Fact 24 through 32 in this 2004 proceeding is a direct contradiction. This aspect of the witness' 2004 testimony and written 1999 evaluation raised substantial issues of the witness' intent and cast insurmountable doubt on the witness' credibility. The lack of consistency in opinion and the ambiguity created by the 2004 testimony of conduct having occurred from pre-termination to post-termination are resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Mr. Merica's competence as a teacher, his teaching skills, classroom management, and student discipline, as evaluated and determined by Principal Griffin, for the 1998-1999 school year, ending May to June 1999, is the more substantial, reliable, and persuasive indicator of his past performance and competence as a professional teacher during the preceding 1998-1999 school year. Debora Bragdon, Secretary to Principals Payne and Griffin Debora Bragdon testified that during the 1999-2000 school year (ending May to June 2000), Mr. Merica came into the administrative office a minimum of once and "sometimes" twice a day, depending upon the day. According to Secretary Bragdon: Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin had discussions in the principal's office a minimum of once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year. Secretary Bragdon could not recall the subject matter discussed nor did she recall hearing Principal Griffin's voice at any time during the alleged daily office discussions. Mr. Merica's voice, however, she heard stating that "Mr. Merica would be screaming so loud that I could hear him clearly." However, she could not recall a word or phrase spoken by Mr. Merica. Secretary Bragdon did not enter the principal's office when Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin were having their daily conferences. Secretary Bragdon surmised, from the tone of Mr. Merica's voice only, that Principal Griffin was in danger. Secretary Bragdon further testified that during those daily conferences she would buzz Principal Griffin on the intercom asking if she needed assistance, and Principal Griffin repeatedly assured her that "she did not need assistance." Principal Griffin did not corroborate or confirm Secretary Bragdon’s testimony on the issue "once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year she had discussions with Mr. Merica in her office." Any reasonable consideration of Secretary Bragdon's above recollection requires acceptance of the fact that a minimum of 180 (once a day) to a maximum of 360 (sometimes twice a day) conferences occurred in Principal Griffin's office during the 1999-2000 school year between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica. The intended inference that during each daily office conference, whether 180 times or more, Mr. Merica was always screaming at Principal Griffin while she sat silently in her office is rejected. Secretary Bragdon's exaggerated testimony lacks any appreciable degree of reasonableness, reliability or credibility. Her entire testimony failed to produce a firm or a precise belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, and the Commissioner failed to prove through this witness that Mr. Merica was confrontational and argumentative with Principal Griffin during unspecified conferences while in her office. Negative Statements Continuing, Secretary Bragdon testified, unconvincingly, regarding unidentified sounds she overheard on the intercom system: rom the sounds I overheard on the intercom system when Mr. Merica called the administrative office for help with control of his students,-not all the time but sometimes you could hear disorder, confusion, kids maybe not under control. (Emphasis added) From unidentified sounds she allegedly overheard on the intercom, Secretary Bragdon concluded that the sounds she heard were "disorder," and, from that, she inferred that the "kids were maybe not under control" in Mr. Merica's class. The intended inference that Mr. Merica's "student behavior management and student control" was not effective at unspecified times, alluded to by this testimony, is rejected for want of reasonable credibility. Secretary Bragdon's testimony in findings 33, 34, and 35 consisted of exaggerated and speculative conjectures. As such, her testimony was not substantial in specifics nor competent in knowledge to establish as fact the allegations testified to in findings 33, 34, and 35 hereinabove. Secretary Bragdon was secretary to both Principal Payne and Principal Griffin, but there is no record evidence of the school year the alleged intercom activities she purported to have overheard, and of which she testified, occurred. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged misconduct during the period 1994 through 1999 (1999 ending December 31, 1999), not throughout 1999-2000. The ambiguity regarding the time period the alleged conduct occurred is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Subversive Statements Secretary Bragdon also testified about a personal conversation between her and Mr. Merica "shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing."4 Although she could not remember the day, month or year, she specifically recalled: I was in the cafeteria getting coffee and Neil was also in the cafeteria. He brought his children in there to have breakfast. And he was up at the same table that I was and he basically just said that, you know, - - everybody was basically talking about it and I don't know word for word, but basically what he said was it would be good if we could do something like that here, but we just have to make sure the administration are in the building. This statement, if true, demonstrated, at its worst, bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When considered within the context (everybody was talking-about it), circumstances (just after the news report of the occurrence), and the location (at a table in the cafeteria) with everyone talking, the alleged statement does not evidence a manifested "subversive" intent of Mr. Merica, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Sectary Bragdon's demeanor, attitude, and manner of responding to questions seemed calculated to provide little light on the substantive facts of the situation, but rather an exaggerated version of the nature and circumstances of the incidents. I find the testimony of Secretary Bragdon unworthy of reliance upon as a true foundation to support findings of fact as to the matters testified to hereinabove. Negative Attitude Toward Administration Statements Cynthia Blake, a DEES attendant at Foster from 1985 to 2002, testified regarding "statements" allegedly made by Mr. Merica that demonstrated his negative attitude (state of mind) toward the school administration. When asked the following question: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration," Ms. Blake gave the following answer: Well, there was a lot and sometimes he would just walk away. He did not want to hear it. He would walk behind me, say it again, and would say, you know, be careful or whatever and it never changed. At this one given time, we was just outside and I was watching some kids, I think, and he came up and they was painting the school and he just said that ought to get all the kids out of the school and blow the school up and leave the administration in the school. During her earlier deposition, Ms. Blake was asked: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration?" As seen below, her response then differed from her present testimony. Q. Do you remember a situation where Mr. Merica said something about blowing up the school? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me about that? A. Well, we at some point always told Neil, you know, to you know, you'd better calm down because you never, you know, people -- the teachers and -- I mean the administration -- you have to just watch yourself. There are certain things you just can't say and probably in a joking way, but it was a lot of stuff going on at the time. The schools had been with firearms and up in Columbine and different situations, so probably it was in a -- I don't know what to say -- but he just spoke of we need to get all the kids about and leave the administration in and blow up the school. Q. Do you remember saying that it was probably in a joking manner back when your deposition was taken? A. Well, basically when Neil spoke about things, he laughed about it, so at the time, like I said, there was so much going on between the news and that, I would never know anymore. Q. All right. So he might have though it was funny, but you didn't think it was funny; is that fair? A. No, sir. The testimony of Ms. Blake, mirroring the testimony of Secretary Bragdon, demonstrated bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When subject to cross-examination about the statement or other aspects of her prior testimony, Ms. Blake became vague and uncertain about her prior versions and was inconsistent on matters that seriously undermined her credibility. Consideration of the situation and circumstances when Mr. Merica made the alleged statement supports a reasonable inference that Mr. Merica's statement was a crude and boorish attempt at making a joke, not in good taste, but nonetheless a joke. The Commissioner did not prove by the above testimony that Mr. Merica was hostile and subversive or intended his comment as derogatory and disrespectful toward his principal as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Classroom Management Allegations Pat Drennan, assistant principal at Foster, by her admission was primarily responsible for the school's educational curriculum. In her "educational curriculum" capacity, Ms. Drennan assisted teachers, students, and parents in curriculum matters and assisted teachers in discipline in the classroom, student testing, and student grades. She was unable to recall the year and date, but she recalled she had been in her position as assistant principal for four years, approximately 1998 through January 2004. When asked about the Board's policy regarding an educator's physical restraint of students, Ms. Drennan responded that her "understanding" of the Board's policy was: [B]asically teachers are not to restrain students unless they have been trained-- unless they have ACT training they can not bring a child down on the ground or anything. She did not know whether Mr. Merica was ACT trained or not at all times pertinent and at the time of her testimony. No writing in the record speaks to this issue, and no predicate was laid to show that the witness was in a position to know the Board's policy. This witness stated her "understanding" of the applicable rule. A finding of fact that a violation of a penal statute or rule occurred cannot be based upon loose interpretations and problematic evidence, but on evidence as substantial as the penalty for violation of such statue or rule. The testimonial evidence given by this witness failed to establish the "rule." Thus, her opinion regarding violation of a rule she does not know, lacks a foundation upon which a reasonable degree of reliability will support. Ms. Drennan recalled one occasion on which (no evidence of the month and year) on which she instructed Mr. Merica "not to restrain a student she 'thought' he had restrained." She recalled making one general suggestion (not explained) to Mr. Merica regarding classroom behavior management, adding, but "he did not have to do it." Ms. Drennan did not know whether during his last year at Foster (1999-2000) Mr. Merica taught the entire year. When asked if she knew why Mr. Merica left Foster she answered: [I]n my mind, the situation was that he no longer was able to control himself and the class--the management of the class. No evidence of record speaks to the issue of a standard of classroom management from which to evaluate Mr. Merica's conduct. To demonstrate this issue the Commissioner's reliance on witnesses who could but state their "understanding" from various and dubious vantage points, failed to prove what was required of Mr. Merica and the specific conduct that fell below the required standards. The intended inference to be drawn from the above testimony of Foster's assistant principal, that Mr. Merica was "unable to control himself" and "unable to manage his class" and thus incompetent, is rejected for a lack of personal knowledge on behalf of the witness and evidence of an objective standard from which to evaluate "control" and class "management" by a teacher. The Commissioner failed to establish, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that Mr. Merica was unable to control himself and unable to manage his class and, thus, demonstrated incompetence, during the (unspecified) period inferred by Ms. Drennan's testimony, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified, unconvincingly, about hearsay from another teacher, Ms. Parson, who told her, "for information only." According to Ms. Drennan: Ms. Paula Parson, a teacher who did not want anything done about it but for information only, told her she was apprehensive about Mr. Merica bringing her lunch and giving her unwanted attention. Paula Parson was not called to testify. The intended inference of unwanted attention is not accepted by the undersigned. The Commissioner failed to prove by the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of Ms. Drennan that Mr. Merica sexually harassed several different co-workers, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility When asked if she was familiar with the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility, Ms. Drennan again, unconvincingly, testified: I think yes, basically, the rule that deals with personal conduct that seriously reduces an educator's effectiveness in the school district,--when someone coming into the district-I would want to look at previous-- what had happened previously with the person and I would think they would be ineffective; I would find them ineffective in the fact if they were not open to interaction with faculty and staff in an appropriate, professional way; They are ineffective if they don't know how to deal with children in the proper way. If they couldn't tell me that they could do a management plan--have one before they walked in. I would find them ineffective if they were not--didn't have the right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many. Besides a degree, it would be how you get along with people, how open you are to learning new things, and that type of thing. There were no incidents of Mr. Merica being insubordinate or confrontational with Principal Payne witnessed by Ms. Drennan. This witness presented no evidence that she had personal knowledge of Mr. Merica's classroom management skills or the lack thereof. Her "opinions" about what conduct would be inappropriate and what conduct that would seriously reduce an educator's effectiveness (and competence) in the school district are her "opinions" and nothing more. The "right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many," standard coming from an assistant principal does not establish an objective and acceptable standard by which to evaluate a teacher's competence as a professional teacher. Viewed most favorably, the "opinions" of Ms. Drennan are not appropriate, objective standards by which to determine whether the professional conduct of a fellow teacher fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed to prove, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that during the period starting approximately in 1998 and continuing through December 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in conduct that fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Confrontations with Principal Griffin Ms. Drennan testified that at some point in time (of which she was not sure and unable to identify) her office was located next door to Principal Griffin's office, and she would "intentionally" leave her door open. According to Ms. Drennan, by leaving her door ajar she "could overhear and 'tell from the tone of the voice'--when someone was loud and confrontational like that [sic] you just never know and I just worried that there could be something else happening." Asked what she meant by "loud and confrontational," Ms. Drennan responded: Well, anger. Obviously, the man was angry when he was in there sometimes. I'm not saying every time, but the times that we're talking about like that, he was angry and anger sometimes can lead to other things, so . . . Ms. Drennan purportedly could overhear Mr. Merica speaking with her door open, but she gave no testimony of what, if anything, she overheard Mr. Merica say. Ms. Drennan's testimony, regarding loud talking by Mr. Merica toward Principal Griffin, inferring his state of mind as being emotionally out of control while conferencing with his principal, is speculative conjecture. There is no record evidence that this witness observed nor personally confirmed with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica was, in fact, angry with Principal Griffin on each of those "sometimes" occasions she heard "someone was loud." This witness did not observe nor subsequently confirm with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica pointed his finger her face, during those unspecified occasions when she sometimes left her office door ajar and sometimes heard someone was loud, as alleged in the Amended Administrative complaint. Secretary Bragdon recalled Mr. Merica yelling “everyday all the time,” and Ms. Drennan contradicts that testimony recalling he was loud and angry, but, qualifying that statement, she added she was “not saying every time [he was in the office].” The testimony of both witnesses, considered separately and together, failed to produced a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Refusal of Failure to Comply with Requests and Instructions When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of any failure or the refusal by Mr. Merica to comply with an identified request or instruction given by either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of Mr. Merica having made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks about Principals Payne or Griffin in her presence. Ms. Drennan's opinion that Mr. Merica deviated from her "understanding" of the principles contained in the Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility standards were speculative and insufficient to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from or violated the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed through this witness to establish any violation or any deviation from standards found in the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility by Mr. Merica. Ms. Drennan failed to establish an objective, ascertainable standard of professional level of effective teacher behavior and teacher classroom management for SLD and IP students. Her testimony and the intended inferences regarding Mr. Merica's alleged ineffective and unprofessional student behavior, teaching, classroom control, and student management is incompetent to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from clearly, established professional standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified as did other co-workers who were present that Mr. Merica's had occasional disruptive verbal conduct in faculty and staff meetings and that during collegiate discussions he often demonstrated an argumentative attitude. The Commissioner proved, through the testimony of Ms. Drennan and other witnesses who were present and testified, that at one or more (unspecified) faculty and/or staff meetings that Mr. Merica occasionally engaged in disruptive verbal conduct accompanied by an argumentative attitude. Derogatory and/or Disrespectful Remarks About Principal Shelley Opila worked as a PI and ESE teacher at Foster from August 1996 to July 2001. When asked to give an example of "bashing the principal," Ms. Opila testified that during (unspecified) faculty meetings, Mr. Merica would often state: "Oh, that will never work," in response to unspecified matters under discussion. There is no record evidence of the situation or circumstances of the particular subject matter under discussions when this witness overheard the statement. Viewed most favorably, the isolated statement, "Oh, that will never work," is a personal opinion and, as such, does not evidence a manifest intent by Mr. Merica to make derogatory statements about the Foster administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Opila testified that she overheard Mr. Merica several times voice his personal opinions "[t]hat you have to be blonde or a female," and "It's who you know to be a principal." Without evidence of the situational circumstances when the statement was made, Ms. Opila assumed that Mr. Merica was referring to one or both, Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin. There was no corroboration from either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin that Ms. Opila conveyed her concerns to either of them regarding Mr. Merica's alleged derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks. Viewed most favorably, the general statement "You have to be blond or a female," could have been a true statement if the record evidence established the color of Principal Payne and Principal Griffin's hair during their respective tenure as principal. The record evidence, however, does not. As reflected in the record, the testimony of this witness does not evidence a specific intent of Mr. Merica to make derogatory comments about Principal Griffin or Principal Payne. The record evidence reflects that approximately 120 educational personnel worked at Foster during the time in question and among that number only five or six were males. The reference to "blond and female to be principal" applied equally to approximately 100 females at Foster who, if they were not at the time the opinion statement was made, were capable of being blond and also capable of being a principal. Neither Principal Payne nor Principal Griffin testified regarding their respective hair colors during times pertinent to when the alleged statements were made by Mr. Merica, and the undersigned did not notice and can not recall with any certainty, the hair color of each of the twenty-plus female witnesses who testified in the proceeding. With the presence of more than 100 other females at Foster, and no evidence of the hair color of the principals at any time, an inexplicable ambiguity of "intent" is here presented. The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of Ms. Opila, that Mr. Merica intended to, and did specifically, make the derogatory comments about Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin by the "blond [hair color] to be principal" statement as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Mr. Merica's Students Performance Ellen Lipari was a teacher of third and fourth grade PI students with various physical ailments and/or traumatic brain impairments from the 1992-1993 school year to approximately the 1997-1998 school year. She taught forth grade PI students during the same five-year period Mr. Merica taught first grade PI students. According to Ms. Lipari: [U]nder the pull-out school board policy in effect during that time, Mr. Merica would pull out and send his kindergarten and first grade level PI students to her third and fourth grade level classes. At some unspecified period during the five-year time period, she and Mr. Merica switched grade levels, Ms. Lipari moved down and taught the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and Mr. Merica moved up and taught the third and fourth grade level PI students. After the switch, she would send her kindergarten and first grade level PI students to his third and fourth grade level classes. According to Ms. Lipari, during the 1997-1998 school year she had many opportunities to observe students Mr. Merica taught when they were thereafter assigned to her class. During that year, she personally observed Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management methods, and his in- class teaching conduct and style. Ms. Lipari described her impressions, gained from close, extended, daily and weekly contact, of his classroom control and management skills and his teaching skills of PI students with various physical ailments and traumatic brain impairments as: Well, you know, he was a very technically-he was technically doing his job, but there was a lot of humanized things that you do with younger children to try to get them to learn to read and those kinds of things that primarily he did not do. He was mostly teaching out of the textbook and trying to teach very specific things and not doing the kinds of things and that's why we decided it would be better if I moved down so that I could do more mothering and maternal type activities and maybe the older children would respond better to having a man teacher. Alleged Complaint from an Unidentified Mother Ms. Lipari moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and to provide what she described as "mothering and maternal type activities," in keeping with the stated policy and goal of Principle Griffin as chief of the Foster administration. As a male teacher, Mr. Merica could not provide "mothering and maternal type activities to first grade level PI students," and it was not established that "mothering and maternal type activities" were requirements of all teachers, male and female, by this policy. During an unspecified period after she moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, unidentified parents of her former kindergarten and first grade student(s) called her complaining to her about the differences in the curriculum used to teach their children who were then in third or fourth grade levels under Mr. Merica. According to Ms. Lipari, some unidentified parents of PI students complained to her that "their former kindergarten and first grade children had been allowed to do certain things, like watch TV programs to which they had become accustomed." Based upon complaints from parent(s) she could not identify, Ms. Lipari reached conclusions and, based upon those conclusions, offered her opinion: I personally did not see any educational benefit to students watching TV because our kids [PI] are at least developmentally delayed, if not mentally handicapped, as well as being physically impaired because those children are primarily mentally impaired. Most of our children's IQs go maybe up to 70-75, so the kind of math that you would do in The Price is Right [TV program] would not be valid for those age level of children. During her years of working with Mr. Merica and observing Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management, and his in class teaching conduct, she never once personally observed Mr. Merica's students watching TV programs. Ms. Lipari's recollection of one phone call and her failure to identify the parent(s), who were so concerned about their children that they personally called Ms. Lipari, fairly detracted from the weight and believability of her testimony rendering it unreliable to establish facts alleged therein. Her testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony from other witnesses. Ms. Lipari's testimony failed to produce a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established. Ms. Lipari's opinion regarding educational benefits derived from watching a TV program, based upon the hearsay of unnamed parent(s), failed to prove, such activity actually occurred, or if it did occur, failed to prove that Mr. Merica’s use of such methods and skills were ineffective teaching methods and deviated from the Code of Ethics or Standards of Competent Professional Performance standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. IPE Preparation and Assistance Ms. Lipari testified that she assisted Mr. Merica, on unspecified occasions, by "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." According to Ms. Lipari: [F]or every student with an IEP, the teacher, parent and therapist [another teacher] agree on goals and objectives that in their collective determination can be achieved by the child during the forthcoming school year. The IEP is a joint collaborative endeavor requiring discussions, disagreements, compromises and finally an acceptable document; subject to subsequent modifications. Ms. Lipari gave her personal belief that: [T]he teacher(s) has to find different ways of handling their PI students' problems because each child is different, according to their disability, according to their ability to write or not be able to write. Some PI children cannot write at all. Some PI children cannot speak at all. Therefore, the teacher has to find some ways to show that the child can read. Because he can't read out loud to the teacher, the teacher would find different methods that can used to show the student is making progress. IEPs are personalized crafted documents designed to address the perceived needs and method of instructions to address the need(s) of each handicapped student. The evidence of record does not speak to the issue of accepted standard(s) for writing an IEP nor is there evidence that Mr. Merica did not comply with accepted standards for writing an IEP. The Commissioner's reliance on Ms. Lipari's "belief" that Mr. Merica needed her assistance in writing one IEP, without more, failed to establish that Mr. Merica was incompetent in his professional teaching skills and/or in IEP writing and/or implementation skills. Viewed most favorably, Mr. Merica had five to six years of writing IEPs with other teachers and counselors before Ms. Lipari's offered assistance which she characterized as "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." The intended inference of this testimony requires first a belief that other teachers and counselors who had worked with Mr. Merica on IEPs during the preceding five years (1987-1992) either did not know "the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP" or were unable or unwilling to recognize a need for "the mechanics of writing an IEP" and to offer and suggest methods of improvement to Mr. Merica, to include Principal Payne who worked with Mr. Merica for almost 10 years. The testimony of this witness was not corroborated. The testimony of Ms. Lipari failed to include essential details that are central to the facts sought to be established and, thus, failed to produce any belief of conviction as to the truth of allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Lipari also failed to demonstrate a single refusal by Mr. Merica to accept and implement one positive necessary suggestion that was, in fact, made by Ms. Lipari to Mr. Merica relating to teaching students with IEPs. This testimony failed to establish the existence of, the beginning of, or the continuation of, a demonstration of professional teaching incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Control of Unruly Male Students Ms. Lipari recalled one occasion an unidentified male student in her class was unruly in the hall. During the time her male student was being unruly, Mr. Merica came along with his class. He asked her if he could be of help with her unruly student and according to her, without waiting for her to reply, physically restrained her unruly male student. No evidence of record establishes an injury to any unruly male student that resulted from the physical restraint by Mr. Merica. This testimony demonstrated that on one occasion Mr. Merica restrained one unruly male student in the hallway who was in Ms. Lipari's class. This evidence also demonstrated that PI and SLD students were routinely unruly in the hallways and elsewhere in the school, when Ms. Lipari was the teacher in control and in charge as well as when Mr. Merica was the teacher in control and in charge of a class. This evidence also demonstrated the propensity of young male students to react to female teachers and to male teachers in a different manner. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding unruly conduct of students, in the hallways when Mr. Merica was the teacher in charge, does not evidence his lack of ability to control and manage his unruly students, as alleged in the Amend Administrative Complaint. This testimony does establish as fact that Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student during a period when his ATC certification was expired. This technical violation of ATC certification by Mr. Merica is accompanied by the fact that the unruly student was unhurt; other PI students were not harmed; and Ms. Lipari, a female, who provided "mothering and maternal type activities," was rendered assistance by a male co-worker, in keeping with the school's policy, according to Ms. Lipari, of having a male teacher in charge of the older and larger male PI students. Ms. Lipari further testified that on one unspecified occasion when she was present in the school hall, Mr. Merica's class was "very loud and unruly." This is the same witness whose class had an unruly male student in the hall when Mr. Merica restrained him. According to Ms. Lipari, during Mr. Merica's loud and unruly class in the hall incident, her class was under her supervision and her volunteer, an unnamed "grandmother," who was assisting her with her class on that unspecified date. According to Ms. Lipari, she and the grandmother observed Mr. Merica: [M]oving from the front of his class line to the back of his class line, swinging his arms back and forth for his unruly students to get in line and stay in line; but, he was not swinging his arms at his students or in their faces. "Grandmother(s)" are community volunteers who come in to assist teachers with PI and SLD students. According to the witness, the objective of grandmother assistants is to provide a soothing and calming presence in the classrooms. Assuming the intended inference to be drawn from this vague, non-explicit, testimony was to demonstrate Mr. Merica's inability to control his class and his unprofessional conduct in the presence of an unidentified member of the community, it failed. The testimony in finding 70 above was not corroborated by other witnesses and was sufficiently vague so as to cause doubt and raise substantial issues of credibility. Viewed most favorably, the above testimony failed to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of this witness, that Mr. Merica's conduct was inappropriate or unprofessional in any manner toward his students in the hall at some unspecified period or in the presence of a member of the public/community as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Negative Feelings About School Administration Ms. Lipari acknowledged that Mr. Merica was a very outspoken person on all issues he addressed. From that observation she went on to testify about an incident in the teacher's lounge when she overheard him make the statement: "[n]o woman was going to tell him what to do." From overhearing that part of a single statement at some unidentified time and without providing the circumstances and context in which the alleged statement was made, Ms. Lipari assumed she knew how Mr. Merica felt about Principal Payne, Principal Griffin and, in general "all females." Based on her assumptions, Ms. Lipari concluded Mr. Merica's statement was specifically intended to be derogatory about a particular unnamed principal. She further assumed the statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do" included her. Based upon those assumptions, she inferred Mr. Merica was speaking first, in a negative fashion; second, he was speaking about all women in general; and third, he was speaking about Principal Griffin in particular. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding Mr. Merica's general opinion statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do," without establishing the context, situation, and/or circumstances at the time the statement was made failed to establish anything other than the statement was made. To this non-specific and ambiguous testimony, any number of meanings can reasonably be attributed, including his private and personal relationships with women in his past. Testimony of this isolated statement is not competent to establish a manifested intent on behalf of Mr. Merica to be disrespectful toward Principal Griffin or Principal Payne or women in general. The testimony in finding 72 was not placed in a situational circumstance that would have enabled the undersigned to render an objective evaluation. The alleged out-of-context statement is not competent to establish as fact allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally made derogatory and disrespectful statements about Principal Griffin and other female co-workers as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. IEP Preparation and Principal Griffin/Mr. Merica Relationship Linda Thomas was an ESE specialist at Foster from 1997 through 2002. Her duties included giving suggestions for curriculum or classroom management, assisting teachers with paperwork, and assisting resource teachers as needed. The usual method of contact would originate from a principal who would call Ms. Thomas and request her to lend assistance to a specific teacher. Answering the open-ended question, "what caused her concern about the Principal Griffin-Teacher Merica relationship," Ms. Thomas, without providing the year or month, answered: In my opinion, I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin- -that he demonstrated that in the school setting. A number of times I overheard him say things such as that he would be around longer than she would. He was frequently making comments in faculty meetings just in general about the leadership and the administration in the school and his dissatisfaction with it. Ms. Thomas' testimony confirmed testimony of others that Mr. Merica often spoke out in faculty and staff meetings. Her opinion regarding what she "believed" to be Mr. Merica's opinion about the administrative leadership, even if true, was based on the alleged "frequency of unspecified comments," and her opinion that "I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin--that he demonstrated that in the school setting," failed to establish as fact any allegation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Answering the question regarding Mr. Merica's preparation for IEP meetings, and without identifying the number of IEP meetings she attended with Mr. Merica during the 1994 through 1999 period in question, Ms. Thomas stated: I believed preparation was very minimal. There was not -- he was not always ready. Most of his IEPs were all the same. Yet, it's -- an IEP is an individual education plan which is written specifically for each child, so every child in your class should not have the same thing written for them. Regarding his preparation of IEPs during the five-year period from 1994 to 1999, and without evidence of the number of IEP prepared by Mr. Merica and/or the number of occasions she personally inspected one or more of those IEPs, Ms. Thomas concluded that "[f]requently he wasn't prepared." This witness’ "belief" was not a "belief" based upon personal knowledge or facts. Though she believed "most of his IEPs--frequently not prepared," there is no evidence of record that she had personal knowledge or had occasion to review the content of an IEP prepared by Mr. Merica upon which to base her "belief," and, without more, her belief is speculative. Ms. Thomas was not qualified as an expert on IEPs and her personal "beliefs" and opinions regarding unidentified IEPs that she may or may not have reviewed, is lacking in preciseness to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. As such, Ms. Thomas' testimony is not competent to corroborate and does not corroborate or support Ms. Lipari's testimony purporting to support the allegation that Mr. Merica's preparation of IEPs "in the school year of 1994- 1995 evidenced his ineffective teaching performance and demonstrated the beginning of his alleged incompetence that allegedly continued undiminished until not later than the end of the 1999 calendar year," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed through the testimony of Ms. Thomas to establish as fact or to prove that Mr. Merica initially or began to demonstrate an inability, refusal, improper, or any other negative aspect of his professional teaching responsibilities at any time during the 1994-1995 school year. Ms. Thomas testified of overhearing statements made by Mr. Merica of which she shortly thereafter made the following written notation dated August 12, 1999: This morning at bus arrival time Mr. Merica left his students unsupervised to go into the clinic to talk with the nurse. His conversation consisted of suggestions that the clinic should have cell phones that could be used at home. He also commented that he should talk to the television reporters who were outside to let them know how the county runs things. He came in and out of the clinic at least 3 times in a 10 minute time span and made these comments in the presence of staff and at least one student. Ms. Thomas' testimony and her subsequent written notation regarding a conversation consisting of "suggestions" that the clinic should have cell phones and that Mr. Merica "should talk to the television reporters who were outside," if true, were suggestions and nothing more. The witness did not know why or for what reason Mr. Merica entered the clinic. The identification of the staff member (other than herself) or identification of the unnamed student alleged to have been present and presumably overheard Mr. Merica's suggestions are not in the record. The witness' testimony demonstrated a distinct lack of a specific memory of the facts at issue to which she testified. The testimony in findings 77 through 80 failed to establish a firm belief without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Visits and Observations Ms. Thomas testified that over an unidentified three- year period she visited and observed Mr. Merica teaching his PI class approximately ten times with each visit lasting ten to 30 minutes. Ms. Thomas' visits and observations were neither made at the request of the principal nor were they made after notice was given to Mr. Merica. She did, however, make note of a single incident outside the school cafeteria, apparently for future reference and not to help a fellow teacher; but of the ten visits she made to observe and presumably help a fellow teacher, she made no written notations evidencing the dates of her visits and observations, at or near the time of each visit. Her alleged visits to Mr. Merica's class, without specifying the reasons for her visits, were more or less one co-worker visiting another co-worker; if, in fact, those ten, undocumented visits actually occurred. Documents Prepared Critical of Mr. Merica's Performance Ms. Thomas did, however, within a 45-day period, prepare seven documents, each critical of either Mr. Merica's conduct or professional teaching methods, and purportedly gave a copy of each document to Principal Griffin. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas were all dated over a three-month period (August 11, 1999 to October 27, 1999), when from evidence of record, Foster administration was preparing to recommend to the Board termination of Mr. Merica's contract employment with the county. Ms. Thomas dated her first document August 11, 1999. She dated her six additional documents Augusts 12, October 19, 20, 21, 25, and 27, 1999. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas did not include any of the alleged ten visits she made over the three-year (from 1997 through August 11, 1999) observation period of Mr. Merica to which she testified from long past memory in Finding of Fact 81 hereinabove. No other witness, including Mr. Merica, corroborated Ms. Thomas' alleged ten visits to Mr. Merica's class. I find the lack of documentation and the witness' lack of recall ability regarding specifics that occurred more than four years past an insurmountable barrier in accepting the witness' testimony as creditable on those significant points sought to be established. When asked on cross-examination whether Principal Griffin requested her to prepare the two August 1999 documents and the five October 1999 documents, Ms. Thomas suffered a sudden lapse of memory. When asked about each document individually, Ms. Thomas gave answers of either "I don't remember," "I couldn't say for sure" or "I couldn't guarantee." The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas in August and October 1999 contained alleged statements made by Mr. Merica, some personal observations, a prepared historical statement beginning with her first meeting with Mr. Merica in 1996 throughout 1997 and 1999, and hearsay statements from several students that were not recorded at or near the time they were made. The witness' failed memory, coupled with her inability to recall if she was asked by her principal to prepare those seven documents within such a short time span, rendered suspect and unreliable both the author and the content of her seven documents. The witness was defensive, evasive, and reluctant on significant points, evidenced by her lack of memory and confusion regarding who made the request and for what purpose she wrote seven different documents in a short time period. Her answers were not forthright and this aspect of her testimony raised insurmountable issues regarding her credibility. The testimony of Ms. Thomas lacked sufficient reliability, due to her uncertainty, to produce a firm belief in the mind of the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica Compared to Classroom Management by Other Teachers When asked about problems regarding classroom management Mr. Merica had with his PI classes as "compared with class room management problems of other teachers," Ms. Thomas answered "[t]here are children in most classes who present behavior problems." Her memory was better on this issue and she recalled observing a few instances with two or three students creating problems in Mr. Merica's class. However, she did not identify the "other teachers" to whom she compared Mr. Merica nor did the witness establish "the other teachers" class room management standards. I find the witness' testimony was intentionally slanted to exaggerate the nature of Mr. Merica's classroom management without providing specific incidents from which an objective evaluation could have been made. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Thomas, to prove allegations that Mr. Merica demonstrated incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, by evidence that he had "more" behavior problems in his ESE and PI classes than other unidentified ESE and PI teachers similarly situated. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica as Compared to Classroom Management by New Teachers with Less Teaching Experience Ms. Thomas testified, unconvincingly, that after Mr. Merica left Foster in 2000, new unidentified teachers came in and taught self-contained SLD classes with acceptable classroom management style. With improved memory on this issue, Ms. Thomas recalled that she observed the new teachers' classroom management style but could not remember if she documented classroom management problems observed with the new teachers, as she had with Mr. Merica. Assuming the intended purpose of this particular testimony was to demonstrate an appreciable difference between Mr. Merica's classroom management skills and teaching methods, after years of experience, to the classroom management skills and teaching methods of new teachers with much less experience, it failed. The testimony of Ms. Thomas regarding the issue of her comparison of class management and teaching skills of Mr. Merica to those of new unidentified teachers, including documents she prepared, those referred to, and the alleged acts therein, whether used for comparison or not, occurred beyond the 1994 through 1999 time period alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint or some comparable pleading. On that basis, this testimony of Ms. Thomas must be, and is, rejected in toto. It is a basic tenet of common law pleading that "the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." See Rose v. State, 507 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The documents Ms. Thomas prepared and the testimony she presented herein above in findings 78 through 85 failed to establish as fact that on those occasions Ms. Thomas observed Mr. Merica, he failed to perform to professional expectations as a competent teacher as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Statements Made to Principal Griffin's Daughter Tamiko Council believed, but was not certain, that she was a DEEDS attendant at Foster the 1997 to the 1999 or the 2000 school year. She testified that during a (unspecified) summer school session, Principal Griffin's daughter had been introduced to her earlier in the day but she was unable to give the date of the incident. As she recalled, she and Principal Griffin's daughter were coming from the bus ramp in route to the cafeteria when Mr. Merica noticed Principal Griffin's daughter and, in her presence, said to the child: You need to tell your mom to quit worrying about teachers around the school. She needs to focus more on what the children are doing. Later that day Principal Griffin called Ms. Council into her office and made inquiry regarding the incident, as told her by her daughter, and Ms. Council confirmed the incident had occurred. Mr. Merica acknowledged making a statement to Principal Griffin's daughter. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica made a statement to the daughter of Principal Griffin. The appropriateness of a teacher stating his opinion to a young person who was a student attending a Hillsborough County school was inappropriate. However, the statement alone, under the above circumstances, does not demonstrate a "failure to protect student[s] attending for educational purposes from harmful conditions." There is no evidence of record offered to demonstrate that Principal Griffin's daughter, after the comments by Mr. Merica, "experienced harmful conditions to her educational purposes," during the summer she was at the school of which her mother was principal. Pamela Wilkins was a teacher of educable mentally handicapped students at Foster for a five-year period from 1993 to 1998. During the three-year period of approximately 1995 through 1998, Ms. Wilkins was an ESE specialist. Harassment and Unreasonable Interference with Co-workers Ms. Wilkins testified regarding an incident that allegedly occurred when she asked Mr. Merica into her office for an unspecified discussion. Ms. Wilkins did not remember the school year or the month the incident of which she testified occurred nor did she remember the situational circumstances, the context or the issue over which she and Mr. Merica had their alleged discussion and subsequent disagreement. With no memory of any specifics as to why she would ask him into her room, Ms. Wilkins only recalled Mr. Merica’s discussion with her that she characterized as "his getting upset and her saying nothing." Ms. Wilkins did not know why she invited him into her office, but emphasized her "only reason" for inviting "him into her office would have been to discuss an ESE issue." There is no record evidence regarding the ESE issue of such importance that this witness called Mr. Merica into her office for a discussion of an issue she does not recall, when her "only" time calling him into her office was so memorable. Having established her ability to ”call Mr. Merica into her office" for reasons unknown to her, this witness then testified about some purported disagreement between she and Mr. Merica. Even assuming the alleged disagreement occurred and was, in fact, over an ESE issue between she and Mr. Merica during their single discussion the witness testified: I really don't recall the entire situation. The main thing 'is just his response.' We were talking about--obviously it was ESE issues and he ended up getting upset, and I was on one side of the desk and he was on the other side. He ended up leaning over the desk and was in my face. His veins in his neck were bulging and kind of trembling and just was yelling at me and I was completely stunned and shocked the way he had responded and so I really did not say anything else at that time. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins evidenced her characterization of one party's reaction to an alleged disagreement over an alleged and unidentified ESE issue. Absence evidence of the context, circumstances, and the ESE issue that precipitated the purported disagreement between co- workers, the record contains no basis upon which to determine with reasonable certainty the appropriateness of one party's alleged reaction to the other party's input during a collegiate disagreement. The referenced reaction, even if accepted as factually true, absent evidence of the issue, context and circumstances, failed to clearly and convincingly establish an unprofessional, hostile behavior on behalf of Mr. Merica toward a co-worker, Mr. Wilkins, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The witness' apparent stunned and shocked reaction to a co-workers' disagreement with her over an unidentified ESE issue was not so unprofessional and shocking, at the time of occurrence, to compel Ms. Wilkins to report such shocking disagreement to the school administration. It was not of such importance, at that time, to prompt Ms. Wilkins to document her shocking outrage for future reference and possible investigation by proper school authorities. Ms. Thomas' lack of recall of the circumstances to an incident to which she was a major participant, and the record evidence of scant circumstances surrounding the alleged one-party reaction to a two-party discussion and alleged violent disagreement, created an insurmountable credibility gap in her testimony. Based on the foregone, it is found that the testimony of this witness lacks credibility. This testimony is rejected because it is wholly unreliable regarding the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins in findings 90, 91, 92 and 93, hereinabove, absent record evidence of the issue which caused the alleged disagreement between colleagues, is sufficiently vague and imprecise that it failed to establish a firm belief, without hesitation, of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The alleged conduct by one party over an unidentified issue during a mutual disagreement between colleagues does not establish unprofessional conduct or a violation of established standard of professional protocol. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Wilkins, to prove that Mr. Merica, while in Ms. Wilkins' office engaged in conduct that was unprofessional, belligerent, hostile, confrontational, and subversive in the workplace toward his co- worker as alleged in the Amended Administration Complaint. Sexual Harassing Statements Made in Presence of Child Evelyn Tait, at all times material, was the administrative data processor at Foster. Before her promotion to administrative data processor, she was a teacher's aide for a few years. Ms. Tait is the sister of Secretary Bragdon. Ms. Tait first qualified her testimony stating that she "believed but was not certain," that the Investigation Manager for the Board (Michael Saia) came to her and asked her if she would write a statement about Mr. Merica. In her effort to comply with the request of the Board's investigator, and on October 2, 2001, Ms. Tait wrote the following document purporting to detail a "forgotten and previously unreported incident" that allegedly occurred, some three years earlier, in 1999. Ms. Tait's efforts to comply with the request of the Board Investigator resulted in Ms. Tait writing the following October 2, 2001, addendum to her 1999 written statement: On August 27, 1999, I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Neil Merica. The statement that I wrote was true and accurate [sic] as I recall. However, I would like to add a time that I was out in the pickup area picking up my son from school. I was in my care [sic] and Mr. MERICA came over to my window and made a commet [sic] regarding to what was under my shirt. I was made to feel very uncomfortable, and was inappropriately addressed [sic] from a teacher to a pa [sic] and also to a parent of a child in this school. Back in August 27, 1999, Ms. Tait wrote: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter to you regarding the actions of Mr. Neil Merica that I have observed. I am a paraprofessional at Foster Elementary School and have only been employed as a permanent employee since the beginning of this school year.[1999] On several occasions, I have seen Mr. Merica screaming at a student with his face being very close to theirs. The child on each occasion looked very scared. Since I am such a new employee at the school, I am not familiar with the discipline procedures of the instructors, but being a parent of an eight year old, I know that the behavior that I have seen him display with the students is very uncalled for. As a parent, I would be very upset if I thought for once that a teacher was yelling at my child in such a manner. I have also witnessed Mr. Merica when he was upset for one reason or another with the administration. He sometimes appears to be out of control, saying things that are unnecessary. I am writing this letter for documentation of what I have observed and for the welfare of the children involved. I am requesting that my name not be revealed to Mr. Merica because being "a smoker", I am in contact with him daily. I am afraid of retaliation from him if he were to find out. Sincerely, Signed by Evelyn B. Tait /s/ The two documents signed by Ms. Tait, and her explanations when questioned, evidenced not truth, but rather confusion caused by this witness' attempt to comply with the request by Mr. Saia, in preparation for her testimony at this hearing. The truth and accuracy of the documents as well as Ms. Tait's understanding, explanation, and lack of credibility regarding these two documents are best demonstrated by her cross-examination: Q. Would you look back at number exhibit 23 again? You wrote that statement on October 2, 2001; is that correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And the first sentence says: "On August 27, 1999 I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Merica." (as read) Were you referring the Exhibit 22? A. I think I was --- Q. All right. You were referring to the other statement when you write that? A. I think I was. Q. I want you to take your time and made sure. That one is dated August 27th, 1999; correct? A. Yes. This happened on two separate occasions. Q. That's what we're going to get to in a minute if you'll let me walk you through this. A. Yeah, it did. Q. You go on to state that you gave a statement back in August '99 and everything you said in that was true, but you want to add something. And what you want to add is this incident that happened at the pickup circle: correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long ago had that incident happened at the pickup circle? A. What do you mean, how long ago? Q. How long prior to the time when you wrote this statement? A. I would say probably close to the date that it was signed. Q. Okay. So the incident at the circle would have been close to October 2001? A. I don't remember the dates sir. I don't remember the dates that I wrote the statements. I don't remember the dated. Q. Al right. The incident at the circle -- did you complain about it when it happened? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who did you complain to? A. I went and obviously told the principal's secretary again. I don’t' know who I would complain to. I'm just not going to -- you know, I wasn't out to get Mr. Merica in trouble. Q. I'm not suggesting that -- A. I was just --- Q. I'm not suggesting that you were. [Witnesses instructed by the undersign to answer the question asked by counsel without editorializing] Q. All right. Let's walk back through it. An incident happened at the pickup circle; correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And at some point after that incident, you reported the incident to someone; is that correct? A. It was immediately. Q. Immediately? That day? A. Yes. Q. All right. You got out of your car when you picked up your child? A. No. It wasn't immediately that day. It was -- like I said, the principal's secretary is my sister, so I probably reported it that afternoon. Q. After you picked up your child? A. Um--hum. Q. Is that a "yes"? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. You took your child home? A. Yes. Q. And then went back to the school to report it? A. No. I probably called her on the telephone. Q. All right. You've said "probably a number of times. Do you -- A. I called her on the -- I don't remember. I'm sorry. I don't remember. You know, I don't remember when it was placed, to be honest with you. I don't remember exactly when it was reported, how it was reported. I don't remember. Q. All right. Did anyone ask you to write a statement about the incident that occurred at the pickup area? A. I don't remember that, either. I guess someone must have asked me to write a statement or I wouldn't have written one. Q. And when you say you wrote one, you're talking about Exhibit 23; correct? A. I wrote this statement as well. Q. Is there another statement besides Exhibit 23 that addresses the incident that allegedly occurred at the pickup circle at the school? A. No. It's this one. Q. So to your knowledge that is the only statement that you made; correct? You made that statement a couple of years after the incident occurred; correct? A. That would be 10-02 -- I mean, 01. Q. All right. A. August 27th is the first statement. Q. Of '99; correct? A. Right. Q. So here we are a couple of years later in 2001 and you're making a statement for the first time about the traffic circle incident; correct? A. Right. Q. That's the only statement that you're written about that? A. Yes. I am very sorry. This is very confusing to me. I wrote statement when they were reported -- you know, when I reported them. I don't remember dates. We're taking how many years ago and I apologize you know. Q. Could it be, ma'am that the first time that you reported the incident that occurred at the traffic circle was around October 2001 when you wrote this statement? A. Yes. When subjected to cross-examination about her two written statements, her confusions, and her lack of personal knowledge of specific details of the alleged curb-side incident, Ms. Tait contradicted her entire testimony as reflected in findings 96, 97, and 98 above, to include the two documents she authored. It is apparent that Ms. Tait's preparation for this hearing, at a minimum included writing a statement three years after the alleged occurrence. It is also reasonable to infer that Ms. Tait's testimony and her 1999 and 2001 documents were an attempt to exaggerate "negative personal conduct on behalf of Mr. Merica" in a decided attempt to appease her employer. Ms. Tait's entire testimony hereinabove, lacks credibility and failed to produce a belief to the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established therein. Sexual Harassment of Co-workers Allegations Kelley Kolinsky (f/k/a Toms), a self-employed Occupational Therapist (OT) since 1998, worked at Foster for two and one-half years, doing evaluations and arranging treatment protocol for ESE children. As an OT, she recalled one pre-K evaluation she covered for Kathy Prado, Ph.D., another occupational therapist. Though she tried to recall the persons present at the meeting, she was unable to do so. She recalled an unnamed parent and a unnamed male who were also present. Ms. Kolinsky testified that she was not going to cover any more meetings at Foster. When asked why? Ms. Kolinsky answered: I don't know exactly. It's been like -- I don’t' even know how long, but I just remember being uncomfortable with -- I don't even remember if it was comments or notes, looks, whatever, but something like with the male teacher that was present at the meeting. But it's been so long that I really can't give any more specifics. When asked if during the meeting there was anything of a sexual nature, Ms. Kolinsky replied: I can't say. I mean, I remember I was uncomfortable, but I don't remember specifically now. The Commissioner, by the uncertainty of Ms. Kolinsky's testimony, failed to establish as fact that during the 1994-1999 school years, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker by making inappropriate comments to Ms. Kolinsky, an occupational therapist, in the presence of other colleagues and/or in the presence of a parent as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Kara Twohy was an ESE teacher at Foster from December 1996 through 2000. Ms. Twohy first met Mr. Merica when she was a teacher-intern in an EMH class at Foster during the 1995-1996 school year. Ms. Twohy testified that Mr. Merica made her "feel uncomfortable" giving as an example the following incident: He would do things like put his arms around me. One thing I can remember is he said I had an ink spot on the back of my shirt and he was attempting to rub it off. He would come -- and this is afterwards when I became a teacher -- he would come to the classroom and he brought a rose at one time, and he was constantly -- whether I was at art or I was in the classroom, he was constantly visiting the classroom. I can remember an incident where I was really ill and he came to an assembly and brought me some tissues. All in all, it just made me very uncomfortable. When she was "really ill," Mr. Merica brought her tissues and once gave her a rose. Bringing tissues to one's colleague when the colleague was "really ill" may have been either an appropriate or an inappropriate gesture. However, the act itself does not prove it was sexual harassment. According to Ms. Twohy, she initially expressed her uncomfortable feelings to other unnamed co-workers and Principal Griffin, but not to Mr. Merica. When she told Principal Griffin about her uncomfortable feelings around Mr. Merica, she testified that Principal Griffin said to her: "there's nothing really that anyone could do, but to start writing everything down. So I began writing them down." There is no evidence of record that Principal Griffin initiated an administrative investigation into the "uncomfortable incidents" related to her by the young teacher, Ms. Twohy. It is, thus, reasonable to infer, and I so infer that at the time and under the circumstances, Principal Griffin did not consider that Ms. Twohy's "uncomfortable" feelings resulting from Mr. Merica's attention to have been "sexual harassment" as that term is generally understood when placed in the above situational context. According to Ms. Twohy, after she told Mr. Merica that his presence, his attention, and his conduct made her feel uncomfortable, she recalled he apologized: There was in incident that occurred between him and my aide at the time who was Adele Morris, and basically she told him to leave me alone and he said well, I'm a big girl so I should be able to tell him myself. And he approached me the following day, I believe, after the confrontation and asked me if he made me feel uncomfortable, and I told him yes, he did. I felt very uncomfortable around him and he did apologize and say that he was sorry for making me feel uncomfortable. As a employee of the Board, Ms. Twohy knew the Board’s sexual harassment policy requirement of reporting harassment to the school's administration. She followed the policy by reporting her uncomfortable feelings and concerns to Principal Griffin. When Ms. Twohy informed Mr. Merica that his attention and conduct made her uncomfortable, he immediately discontinued all contact and apologized to her. If, as the Commissioner argued, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy during the time above-stated, she followed protocol and reported the matter to her principal. There is no evidence of record that the principal of Foster initiated or requested an investigation by the School Board and a determination of whether or not Mr. Merica committed the alleged sexual harassment. If the matter was not properly investigated and determined by the Board to have been sexual harassment when it occurred, it will not be determined to be sexual harassment now by the undersigned based solely upon the unconvincing testimony of Ms. Twohy. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, by findings 96 through 103 hereinabove, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy, a co-worker and sexually harassed Ms. Kolinsky, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Kim Kimpton, via her video-taped testimony, was convincing and unequivocal in her response to the question, "[D]o you consider Mr. Merica's action(s) towards you to be sexual harassment? "No, not specifically." The "actions toward you" referred to what was described by the Commissioner as unwanted attention, several instances of on school-property encounters and off school-property encounters, to include buying lunch for her on one or more occasion, giving her presents, and thereafter writing a letter of apology. The Commissioner failed to prove by the evidence of record that during the 1998-1999 school year, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Kimpton, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica sexually harassed any present or past female member of Foster's administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. SLD Student's Version of Classroom Management and Student Control Patricia Rumlin, mother of Jarmaal Rumlin, a 15-year- old SLD student witness who, at the time of the hearing, was in ninth grade, accompanied him at the hearing. When asked, Jarmaal remembered he had been a student in Mr. Merica's class for his fourth and fifth grade school years (1997-1999 school years), but he did not remember the specific school years. During the period Jarmaal was a Foster student, the Board was operating under the self-contained class policy, and Jarmaal was in Mr. Merica's self-contained class throughout the school day. When asked the open-ended question, "[W]hat about the incident when the kids were kicking a ball in the classroom?" Jarmaal gave the following, incomplete, confused, response: We was [sic] playing in the class. Takela kicked the ball to the back of the room and she went to go get it and he trapped us in the back of the room and we bust out and we ran down to the PE field. When asked "[D]id Mr. Merica ever come into any contact or anything with Takela?" Jarmaal, again confused, answered: No. He just holding in the back of the room. [sic] Holding her and she was trying to run and trying to grab her. She was going to fight back, until she got loose and ran. When asked, "[W]hy did you not mention or report this incident to other teachers, the principal [1997-1998/Payne and 1998-1999/Griffin] or the Board’s investigator?" (1999 to 2003) Jarmaal answered: "They didn't talk to me." Jarmaal's above testimony, did not corroborate the testimony of another witness who stated: "Ms. Teresa Joslyn entered a room and found Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal by the arm and yelling in his face and that Ms. Joslyn took him by the hand and stood him up and Principal Griffin came into the room and observed those actions," as argued by the Commissioner in its post-hearing submittal. Jarmaal admitted that "kids in his class misbehaved in class, played kickball and got up and walked around when they were not suppose to." When asked if he liked Mr. Merica, Jarmaal answered "[N]o." When asked if he learned anything in Mr. Merica's class Jarmaal answered, "I didn't learn nothing [sic]." When asked if he wanted Mr. Merica as his teacher again, Jarmaal, answered, "[N]o I don't Mr. Merica as my teacher again." Testimony from other teachers at Foster established that SLD students were, if not daily, most certainly, routinely unruly in their classes and in hallways. Jarmaal's testimony seemed rehearsed, but he was confused about the facts critical to the situation of which he testified. The witness' inability to recall and his manner of testifying raised substantial issues of the witness' credibility primarily because of his seemingly rehearsed responses and confused factual response, often mixing several parts of separate incidents. Through the testimony of Jarmaal, a SLD student, the Commissioner failed to demonstrate and prove by example that: (1) Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate discipline, (2) he failed to engage in meaningful teaching methods, (3) he lacked professional classroom control and management of his SLD class, and (4) he was incompetent as a teacher, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find the SLD students' reply he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer that the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Tawnya Clark, mother of Demetrie White, another 15- year-old SLD student, accompanied him in the hearing. Demetrie only remembered attending Foster. He did not remember the years he attended Foster (1997-1998/Principal Payne and 1998- 1999/Principal Griffin). He did not remember the grades he was in when he was attending Foster. He did not remember the class (fourth and fifth grades) he was in when Mr. Merica was his teacher. When asked "[I]n what ways Mr. Merica would get upset?" Demetrie, hesitantly, gave the following response: When like students get like up out of they seat and walk around the classroom and talk to other students, he'd get mad then and then after that he'd like -- Jonathan he would be like getting up out of his seat and talk to me, Eldrid and another friend who go to my school and he would like grab Jonathan, try to twist his wrist and then slam him on the ground and then Jonathan would be like, Get up off me. And then that's when like he would like flip. He would try to get up off the ground, Jonathan. That is when he tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. That's it. Demetrie admitted that the kids would get up and walk around in class when they were not supposed to do so. He admitted that Jonathan tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. He remembered a female teacher's aide but he did not remember her name or whether she was black or white. As with Jarmaal, Demetrie remembered Mr. Merica yelling at students when they were acting up. He remembered Mr. Merica yelling in the faces of students. Demetrie, like Jarmaal, said he did not like Mr. Merica, "he didn't learn nothing" and he "didn't want Mr. Merica as his teacher again." Utter confusion permeated Demetrie’s understanding of the questions asked of him and his seemingly rehearsed answers to those questions. I find the SLD student's reply that he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Viewed most favorably, the testimonies of these two very large young boys consisted of a confused misunderstanding of questions asked of them and their rehearsed answers. The testimony of these two young boys established that at times, Mr. Merica yelled at them and, on occasion, restrained them for his personal defense and/or to regain classroom control when they were acting out of control, being disobedient, playing kickball in the class room, and yelling at each other and at him. The situational circumstances of the separate incidents to which the witnesses testified occurred four or five years earlier. These two SLD students were confused, and their testimony consisted of a mixture and intermingling of critical factual portions of two separate incidents into one continuous dialogue. From their individual and collective testimony, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of Mr. Merica's conduct, in an attempt to control and manage his SLD class, cannot be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty to produce a firm belief as to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The ambiguity created by the testimony of Jarmaal and Demetrie relating to a specific portion of their testimony related to a specific incident is decided in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained" Takela, a student in his SLD class, by holding her arm. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained” Jonathan, a student in his class, by holding the wrist and arm of Jonathan. Based upon the testimony of these two young SLD students, assuming accuracy and truth, Mr. Merica’s physical restraining actions were, given the circumstances and situation at the time of physical restraints, appropriate for the defense of his person and for the protection of other students in the class. Disagreement Over IEP Content and Student Control In 1995 Ms. Teresa Joslyn began teaching at Foster Elementary as an EMH teacher. She affirmed other witnesses' testimonies that Mr. Merica was loud and argumentatively disruptive during staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Joslyn, however, gave unconvincing testimony regarding one IEP meeting she attended with Mr. Merica, but she could not provide the month or school year the IEP meeting occurred. According to Ms. Joslyn, during this IEP meeting an unnamed parent wanted unspecified items included in her unnamed child’s IEP, and Mr. Merica, the teacher, was apparently of the opinion that those items desired by this parent were not necessary. The IEP in question was not entered into evidence. When asked whose opinion determined the make up of the IEP, Ms. Joslyn replied, "[t]he case manager, who is generally the teacher [Mr. Merica in this instance]-- the person that serves the child the most.” During this particular IEP meeting, and with no evidence, or personal knowledge of the specific IEP items under discussion, Ms. Joslyn never the less concluded an unspecified position maintained by Mr. Merica was unreasonable and, by implication, unprofessional, and the position taken by the unidentified parent was reasonable. Ms. Joslyn's testimony is not credible, competent or of substantial weight to support a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Ms. Joslyn, without giving the year or month, remembered occasions when she would visit Mr. Merica’s classroom. According to Ms. Joslyn: On the occasion(s) when I would enter Mr. Merica's room, oftentimes I did not find him engaged in active teaching. There were times when I would walk in and he was--there was a game on the computer that he was playing or he'd be reading the newspaper or magazine at his desk. The aides -- the children would --have may or may not have worksheets on their desks and the aides seemed to be the ones that were more engaged with the children. Ms. Joslyn testified again, unconvincingly, about one incident she remembered, but she was unable to provide the month or year, when she heard a "kind of ruckus and loud voices." She remembered hearing an unnamed child's voice and Mr. Merica's voice, but she did not hear the words being spoken by either person. She supposedly entered the room and saw Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal (Rumlin) by the arm and Jarmaal trying to resist and get up. Continuing, she also remembered that Mr. Merica was agitated, upset, and yelling, and the child was also yelling. Ms. Joslyn specifically recalled that while she was "taking Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." According to Ms. Joslyn, both "the Principal" (Griffin) and Jarmaal were actively involved in this arm holding incident. Principal Griffin did not corroborate Ms. Joslyn's vague and non-specific memory of an undated arm holding incident. Jarmaal was not asked about this specific incident nor did he corroborate Ms. Joslyn's testimony. No other witness called by the Commissioner gave corroborating testimony in support of Ms. Joslyn’s testimony. This is critical to the credibility determination in this proceeding since allegations of inappropriate conduct in his professional relations with children are specifically alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and form the bases, in part, to support the allegation of professional incompetence. I find that Ms. Joslyn's vague, non-specific testimony, without corroboration of the other alleged participants to establish the context, circumstances, and time, raised substantial issues of her credibility. Her testimony and credibility was further diminished by the lack of corroborating evidence from other witnesses who were allegedly involved. The testimony contained in findings 128 and 129 hereinabove is rejected for its lack of credibility. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Joslyn, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was not engaged in active teaching and that on unidentified occasions he was playing computer games or reading a newspaper or magazine while some unidentified staff taught his class and failed to prove that Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate conduct by "holding Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." The Commissioner has failed to prove that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Debbie Maronic, physical education teacher at Foster, gave repetitive testimony affirming the fact that Mr. Merica was loud, often disruptive, and sometimes argumentative with colleagues at staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Maronic also testified of having heard "numerous stories about how Mr. Merica behaved inappropriately to other female staff members at meetings or in the hallway or other places," without recalling any one of those numerous stories. Ms. Maronic admitted that she heard her information, not from Kelly and Kim Rivenburg, the females alleged to have been recipients of inappropriate conduct, but from second-hand people. The hearsay upon hearsay summary testimony of "stories" Ms. Maronic heard regarding inappropriate conduct toward females is not competent to establish a finding of fact. The testimony of Ms. Maronic is rejected in toto by the undersigned. When the testimony of Ms. Kolinsky, Ms. Twohy, and Ms. Kimpton, that they were not sexually harassed by Mr. Merica, is juxtaposed to the hearsay upon hearsay testimony of Ms. Maronic that Mr. Merica "behaved inappropriately to other female staff members," a pattern of gossip, moving from witness to witness presented by the Commissioner, emerges for which there is no defense and very little, if any, truth to be objectively determined. The uncorroborated testimony of this witness lack credibility and is rejected. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Maronic, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct, inappropriate conduct, and/or sexually harassed female co-workers as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Ms. Maronic testified, again unconvincingly, concerning a throwing incident in the school cafeteria in 1999, she did not observe and therefore could not provide situational circumstances surrounding this incident. According to Ms. Maronic, as she walked by she could see Mr. Merica out in the hallway very upset and yelling very loudly at very close proximity to the unidentified students. Ms. Maronic testified that she was not "comfortable" witnessing that situation and would not leave the area until an administrator came. Nothing in her testimony identified the administrator who allegedly came so she could leave; she knew nothing, who, what, where, when or why, about the incident, though so "uncomfortable," she believed her presence was required. She neither attempted to record this "uncomfortable" incident for future reference nor did she report the matter directly to the school administration. This testimony was not internally consistent and the character of this witness' testimony, as well as the witness' demeanor, did exaggerate the nature or circumstances of the incident. The testimony of this witness lacks precise explicitness to produce a belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact through the testimony of Ms. Maronic that, at some unspecified time in 1999, Mr. Merica's student behavior management was inappropriate or that Mr. Merica demonstrated professional incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Professional Assistance Offered by Resource Teachers Virginia King, with over 21 years of teaching experience, held the position of Hillsborough County, Area IV, administrative resource teacher (ART) since 1981. Ms. King's primary duty was to provide support and training for teachers of ESE. Her three-part support and training program consisted of: (1) teacher evaluation followed by (2) teacher assistance and concluded with (3) specific training for the teacher. Ms. King was not qualified as an expert. Based solely upon her experience, Ms. King opined that--"dealing with student behavior issues are [sic] challenging to teachers and most difficult for teachers in emotionally handicapped full time programs,” as was Mr. Merica. She further opined that "both SLD and ESE classes have behavior issues; but, in full-time ESE classes, student behavior control is most difficult for teachers regarding overall classroom control and classroom management, as compared to full-time programs where teachers of PI classes classroom control and management is least difficult." Ms. King testified that in her 21 years of teaching experience, many ESE teachers have difficulty with classroom behavior and management issues, and the training of teachers of those students is ongoing training in the Hillsborough County school system that never ceases. She is of the opinion that yelling in students' faces is unreasonable and physically restraining a student is "never" justified. Ms. King's opinion regarding physical restraint of a student is "never" justified conflicts with the statutory authority of teacher(s) to remove disrespectful, violent, uncontrollable or disruptive students from classes when appropriate, to include physical restraint, as provided in Subsection 1003.32(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2003). The Commissioner did not introduce evidence of physical restraints standards adopted by the Board of Education. The opinion of Ms. King is contrary to the statute and disregarded for all purposes in this proceeding. Proffered Evaluation and Assistance Offered to Respondent During the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin requested that Ms. King visit Foster to evaluate, assist, train, and help Mr. Merica with his SLD class. According to Ms. King (without giving the year and month), she made two visits to Mr. Merica's class. She testified only about her initial visit that took place during the morning class session. When she returned for a second visit, the school administration had removed Mr. Merica from his teaching position. This one visit by Ms. King was the first step of her three-part support and training program, i.e. teacher evaluation. There was no teacher assistance and specific training offered to Mr. Merica by Ms. King. When asked to give her "general impression" of Mr. Merica's professional ability and competence to teach SLD students after just one visit, Ms. King replied: Well, in our interview I was a little surprised because I didn't really -- he has a background in SLD so he had a lot of knowledge of SLD and how to teach children with learning disabilities, addressing their different learning styles and I was actually able to observe that in class. It was a math class and I thought that he did a very nice job of addressing the student's individual needs, and that's a difficult thing to do because they're all so different and they were all at different math levels and I did see that he was able to use different teaching techniques all in one lesson. He did mention to me that -- well, I knew that there were behavior problems and I did see behavior problems and that did happen after the lesson in the transition period. The children were unruly and not really doing, you know -- you could tell that there was a lack of control was obvious. But at this particular time, the children had been really fairly well-behaved and he had mentioned to me that I should come back in the afternoon -- because this was a morning visit -- that I should come back in the afternoon so that I could see their true behavior which he said was truly out of control. Through the testimony of Ms. King, the Commissioner, clearly and convincingly, proved to the undersigned that during the 1999-2000 school year, Mr. Merica's competence as a professional teacher of children with learning disabilities ("the children had been really fairly well-behaved") was the same as and/or equal to competence as a professional teacher in the classroom of other teachers of children with learning disabilities whom the witness had observed. Conversely, the Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of this witness that Mr. Merica demonstrated "incompetence" in his classroom teaching skills or that his classroom student behavior management was ineffective. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica utilized ineffective lesson plans and ineffective classroom behavioral management plans. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica failed to keep students academically engaged in class and that he failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, through Ms. King's testimony regarding her single classroom visit, that Foster administration, by and through Principal Griffin, offered Mr. Merica meaningful, professional, constructive help and assistance program plan that he intentionally disregarded and that he failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The record evidence does not specify whether Ms. King's one visit occurred during the school year of 1998- 1999 or the school year of 1999-2000. This omission creates an ambiguity between the year 1999 (alleged in the complaint) and the year 2000 (the year beyond the time alleged in the complaint). The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The testimony in findings of fact 139 and 140 is incompetent and irrelevant to establish as fact allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner presented testimony of Sue Hindman. Ms. Hindman, with over 27 years of teaching experience and at all times material, was an ART and an ESE supervisor for Area II, in Hillsborough County. Model Classroom Observation Prior to and in Preparation for Termination by the Hillsborough County School Board Near the end of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin called Ms. Hindman and requested her to do a model classroom observation of Mr. Merica's class. A "model classroom observation" consisted of Ms. Hindman's selecting another classroom and SLD teacher (the model) in the same or similar position of the teacher (Mr. Merica) to be observed. The teacher (Mr. Merica) being observed, along with Ms. Hindman, would then visit the "model" SLD class to observe how the classroom itself was arranged and how the lessons were presented to SLD students. Based on the teacher's personal observation, and with the help and assistance of Ms. Hindman, the teacher (Mr. Merica) would then modify and model his/her classroom arrangement, classroom behavior management, SLD students' lesson planning and presentation, and other educational matters involved with teaching SLD students to that observed in the model classroom. After a reasonable period of adjustment, the ART would return to evaluate the "results of implemented changes" made after the model classroom. On October 8, 1999, after observing Mr. Merica's classroom, his teaching, his student control and classroom management, and after observation of the model SLD teacher and classroom, Ms. Hindman made unspecified suggestions for improvement to Mr. Merica. After she made her suggestions for improvement, Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her unspecified, suggested improvements had been accepted and put into effect by Mr. Merica, and, if so, to document what results were observed. Ms. Hindman documented improvements she noted in Mr. Merica's class on her return visit as follows: The new behavior rules were typed clearly and colorfully. The post-it-notes [tickets] were being used to reward positive [student] behavior. Instructions was hampered by inappropriate student behaviors. On October 18, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a second follow-up visit to observe the progress of her earlier unspecified suggestions. During this second return visit, Ms. Hindman made additional unspecified suggestions for improvement. Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her second suggested improvement had been put into place and if so, the effect and impact of her second suggestions. Ms. Hindman documented improvements observed in Mr. Merica's classroom management and student control and professional teaching competency on her second return visit as follows: Student behavior was better. Students responded to the LLP redirections. They also responded to the additional tickets given for good behavior. More positive comments were made when students were on task. Student behavior will improve as teacher consistency improves. The more aggressive students are getting, all the attention (and tickets) while the good students tend to be neglected. Curriculum must now become a priority. Your students really settle down while working on assignments and seem eager to accomplish tasks. Capitalize on that momentum! On October 26, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a third return visit to observe Mr. Merica's implementation of her earlier suggestions. During this visit, Ms. Hindman made additional suggestions for improvement and documented improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom teaching and classroom management and student control as follows: Reading groups began today using a sequential program. Math groups began learning higher skills plus using manipulative. Individual work folders were used for seatwork. Through the testimony and corroborating documentation of Ms. Hindman, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that as late as October 26, 1999, Mr. Merica accepted and implemented constructive criticism and assistance from those administrators whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Hindman, as it did through the testimony of Ms. King, allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally disregarded and failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance. The undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman clearly demonstrated that when given constructive professional assistance, a reasonable opportunity to implement the constructive assistance, and an objective evaluation thereafter, Mr. Merica was amenable and put into practice professional assistance and suggestions that proved to be helpful. He responded positively by implementing suggestions made by Ms. Hindman and to those made by Ms. King. During each return visit by Ms. Hindman, Mr. Merica demonstrated continued improvement in his professional ability as a SLD teacher. I find that through the testimony and resulting documentation of three separate occasions of Ms. Hindman rendering professional help and assistance and Mr. Merica's positive response thereto established as fact that the competence of Mr. Merica was not diminished so as to impair his effectiveness as a teacher in the Hillsborough County school system as of October 26, 1999.5 Petitioner's Presence Outside His Classroom, His Teaching, and Classroom Management Mr. Merica presented the undisputed testimony of Mary Evans-Bauman, a DEEDS Attendant who worked with over 15 teachers during her employment at Foster. From January through July of the 1997-1998 school year, Ms. Evans-Bauman was assigned and did work with Mr. Merica in his self-contained PI class. She did not work with Mr. Merica during any period he was teaching a SLD class. According to Ms. Evans-Bauman, Mr. Merica did not leave his classroom more often than any of the other 15 teachers with whom she worked during her employment at Foster. Based upon her daily observations, Ms. Evans-Bauman opined that Mr. Merica's PI students respected him, and she did not observe any problems with his classroom management. She denied observing Mr. Merica playing video games or reading newspapers when he should have been teaching. She testified that she never observed Mr. Merica exhibiting out-of-control behavior or imposing inappropriate discipline on students in his PI class. She acknowledged that PI students, because of their restricted physical mobility, were less likely to become disruptive and unruly because of their physical limitations. Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Carolyn Mobley. Ms. Mobley worked 21 years at Foster as a teacher's aide and as a DEES attendant. During her extended tenure at Foster, she worked with approximately ten different teachers, including Mr. Merica. Ms. Mobley began working with Mr. Merica during the 1998-1999 school year, the first year he taught a PI class with Ms. Payne as principal. She continued working with Mr. Merica when Principal Griffin moved him to an SLD class during the 1999-2000 school year. According to Ms. Mobley, she worked with Mr. Merica continuously, five days per week for seven and one- half hours per day, for two consecutive years. Based upon her continuous presence in Mr. Merica's classrooms, she had abundant opportunities to observe Mr. Merica's interactions with students in both his PI and SLD classes; she answered the question of how she would characterize his relationship with his students as follows: I would say he didn't have no problems that I would consider problems because I have kids and I wouldn't want nobody to mistreat mine, and I'm a fair person. On the mistreating kids in any way question, Ms. Mobley answered: No. He always seemed to be generosity [sic]. He would always treat them with respect and do the things most teachers wouldn't do, I would say. On what kind of things he would do that other teacher wouldn't do, Ms. Mobley answered: Well, you know, sometimes if they didn't have their lunch and they wanted something, then he would treat them to it, you know. On Fridays when they had free time, he would give it to them out of the cafeteria. Answering the question whether she observed Mr. Merica being off task--off his teaching duties during the time that you were the aide in the PI class, i.e. reading a newspaper during the time when he should have been teaching or playing computer games during the time he should have been teaching, Ms. Mobley answered: "No." Answering the question whether Mr. Merica would leave the classroom and leave the aides to take care of the kids, Mr. Mobley answered: No, because if he left the classroom, he would say, "I'm going to the office," run some papers or basically we knew where each other was. We always knew. Answering the questions whether Mr. Merica leaving the class occurred more often than other teachers, acting in an unprofessional way, being belligerent, and being confrontational with students, Ms. Mobley answered each question "No." Answering the question whether there were more behavioral problems in the SLD class than in the PI class, Ms. Mobley answered: SLD kids do have a behavior, [sic] where PI kind is not as verbal word-wise--. Answering the compound question of Mr. Merica's interactions with students in the SLD class, acting in an unprofessional way to any of the kids, being belligerent with the children, being hostile with the children, and being confrontational with any of the children, Ms. Mobley answered: "No" to each question within the compound question. Answering the compound questions of whether Mr. Merica raised his voice toward the students; talked loud when he was close to a student, screamed, or yelled, Ms Mobley answered: I wouldn't say raise his voice, but he talked loud, like scream or yell- No. Well he always talked loud, so to me it was always a loud voice. He don't have a soft voice. He had a loud voice. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Mobley, Mr. Merica demonstrated that from the school year beginning in 1998 and ending in 1999 his teaching and student behavior management, as observed by Ms. Mobley, was not ineffective; that he did not frequently leave his own class with his aides; that he did not walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students; and, when in class, that he did not play video games on his computer, read newspapers, or review architectural designs, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Human Resources Manager's Testimony Based upon her Summary Reports of Letters and Reports Received From Staff The Commissioner presented, as a summary witness, the testimony of Janice Velez.6 Ms. Velez had over 30 years in the school system during which time she has occupied the positions of classroom teacher, teacher trainer, school-based administrator, and director of personnel services. For four years (1999-2003), she occupied the position of General Manager of Human Resources (HR) for the School Board. The Commissioner did not qualify Ms. Velez as an expert. As director of personnel services for the School Board, Ms. Velez receives information, via written reports from Foster administration, from individual teachers, from medical personnel, and from other sources regarding school personnel. Ms. Velez rarely, if ever, has personal knowledge of instructional personnel activities at the many schools in the county, before such activities are reported to her in written form through the chain of administrative protocol. It is noted that her reports in evidence are not sworn to or notarized by the person(s) with personal knowledge nor are they "tested" for accuracy by independent investigation by Ms. Velez. She accepts each report as factually accurate. It was against this background and based upon many such unspecified reports that Ms. Velez summarized and posted a letter to Mr. Merica reflecting her summarized version of those hearsay reports that the Commissioner asked Ms. Velez to "explain" the first sentence of her July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. The sentence counsel for the Commissioner asked for as an explanation read: "Some information has come to my attention that you and I need to discuss." To the question "explain what did you mean by that sentence," Ms. Velez answered with the following editorial: What he acknowledged, and I don't have the report in front of me, but I remember the student was a difficult child and he had -- what upset me and the reason I asked him about the ACT [Aggression Control Techniques] certified was that in the course of taking care of this child, had dragged her across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process. That's when I asked him if had had been trained and he said no, he had never been scheduled. There is no evidence that tends to corroborate the hearsay evidence contained in Ms. Velez's July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. Ms. Velez did not possess personal knowledge of the information reflected in her letter. Consequently, her testimony regarding Mr. Merica's alleged response merely amounts to hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. There is no record evidence identifying the context and circumstances of "[w]hat he acknowledged” as testified to by Ms. Velez. The intended inference that Mr. Merica acknowledged-—“that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her across the carpet or something," was not corroborated by any "other adult present that assisted him." Mr. Merica's denial "that he dragged her across the carpet or something," even if unbelievable, does not prove the Commissioner's accusation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez’s recollection explanation is an assumption and not fact (that he dragged a child and other students and adults were present). Based upon her assumption, Ms. Velez concluded that Mr. Merica acknowledged her assumption as fact. The assumption and conclusion of “acknowledgement” by Mr. Merica of that assumption is incompetent, not credible and insufficient to establish the incident as fact or to establish that Mr. Merica admitted and acknowledged her assumptions and her conclusions “that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her [a child] across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process." Ms. Velez testified that she met with Mr. Merica on four separate occasions, the first meeting occurred on or about the first week in July 1994, during the period Ms. Payne was principal. At the time of her first meeting with Mr. Merica in July of 1994, Ms. Velez was not general manager of HR for the Board. The evidence of record does not establish Ms. Velez’s position in the school system in July 1994, other than she was a teacher assigned to personnel services. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that during the first week in July 1994, she was “initially concerned” because Mr. Merica was not ACT certified. The Board's policy required each teacher to be ACT certified before engaging in physical restraint of students. In 1993 to 1994, Ms. Velez was a teacher assigned to personnel services, and the record evidence does not provide any authority for her to “meet with Mr. Merica” as a part of her duties in personnel services. There is no evidence of record that Principal Payne, who was principal and who did not corroborate this story, requested Ms. Velez’s involvement with her teachers, including Mr. Merica. Assuming Ms. Velez had authority to read Mr. Merica’s personnel file, why in 1994 did she only recall his restraint certification status? Principal Payne testified that she, and she alone, identified Mr. Merica's needs for improvement and provided him with useful suggestions that he incorporated and showed improvement. Principal Payne buttressed her testimony by giving Mr. Merica all "satisfactory" annual performance evaluations. Ms. Velez's testimony regarding any facet of Mr. Merica professional competence in the school year of 1994 to the contrary is not accepted by the undersigned as credible evidence. The Commissioner, through the testimonies of 21 witnesses, failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica exhibited any indicia of professional incompetence in July of 1994. Through the testimony of Ms. Velez the Commissioner again affirmed other witnesses' testimony that Mr. Merica was not ACT certified at certain periods. However, the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Mr. Merica’s last year of ACT certification was the year of 1995 and not, as Ms. Velez mistakenly assumed in her testimony, 1994. The Commissioner failed in its attempt to establish 1994 as the beginning year of Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence through the above testimony by Ms. Velez. In 1999, Ms. Velez was appointed to the HR position. Six years before, in 1993, she was in personnel services. It was during the 1993-1994 period that the Commissioner sought through her testimony to prove Mr. Merica knowingly admitted and acknowledged that in July 1994 "he used excessive force or restrained a [unidentified] child inappropriately as reported by a parent [unidentified] to the police department and the school internal investigators." The bare hearsay "admission against interest" hearsay statements of unproven acts from unidentified hearsay sources is not corroborated and is rejected by the undersigned. Ms. Velez gave her explanation of meeting with Mr. Merica for a second time on August 12, 1999, which she later reduced to a letter dated September 24, 1999. In that letter Ms. Velez recited the purpose of the August 12, 1999, meeting-- "for discussion of an investigative report into coworker's allegation that during the summer he made threatening remarks against the school administration and comments made about Principal Griffin, i.e. "She dyed her hair blond to get her job, "I got rid of one principal; I'll get rid of her too," and "If she wants to go head-to-head, then I'll win." In her 1999 letter, Ms. Velez stated that Mr. Merica admitted making the alleged statements, explaining the statements were "hearsay" and because, as he viewed the situation, "others wanted to bring [him] down to their own misery levels." Her third meeting with Mr. Merica occurred in September of 1999. This meeting, she explained, was convened "for discussion of a letter of reprimand written by Principal Payne." (In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE coworker.) Later during that school year when she evaluated his overall professional teaching performance, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments, for the 1998-1999 school year. This meeting and the letter of reprimand concerned Mr. Merica's professional conduct on two separate incidents. Those two incidents were a faculty meeting disruption and a school improvement team and parent meeting. No testimony was elicited or given by Ms. Velez regarding the situational circumstances attendant to those two incidents. When asked her opinion of Mr. Merica's "attitude" toward her during this third meeting, Ms. Velez replied: I would say it ranged in the typical realm of employees. When they meet with me sometimes they're angry. He was in denial that the letter was warranted. He said he didn't perceive himself to have lost his temperament. He did not recall -- in one of the two incidents, someone said he banged his hand or fist on the table. I don't recall doing that. There were several letters that the principal also forwarded to me from colleagues and they said that he was out of control. He said, I'm not out of control. I have a loud voice. And basically he was in denial that the incident was as significant as the principal had alleged in her letter or reprimand. The fourth meeting between Ms. Velez and Mr. Merica occurred on October 1, 1999. Also present at the meeting were Carl Crosson, CTA representative, and Dr. David Binnie, assistant superintendent for HR. The purpose of this fourth meeting was to discuss a specific classroom incident that had occurred on or about September 23, 1999, where it was alleged that Mr. Merica retained five students in the classroom due to their misbehavior while the other students went to lunch with the paraprofessional. In her 1999 letter, in the first paragraph, Ms. Velez wrote her version of an incident she did not personally observe: During the timeout period, you asked these students to sit quietly in their desks, while you placed your own lunch in the microwave. When they began to dance about the room and to toss and roll a kickball among themselves, you summoned several times for assistance on the intercom. During this period, you stated you remained at your desk, although once you tried to kick the ball away and once you moved your elbows in an effort to keep a student from retrieving the ball that had rolled behind your chair. Another student subsequently hit you on the head with a folder, and you chased him briefly until he, at your direction put the folder down. You summoned additional times for assistance. Continuing with the second paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: As a result of your poor performance this year, and its negative impact on the quality and continuity of instruction for students assigned to you, your principal recommended that you be either administratively transferred or dismissed as a teacher. Actions on these recommendations was placed in abeyance since you asked for, and Dr. Binnie granted, additional time and assistance from school and district personnel for you to develop and implement a plan to appropriately regain control of and develop respect from your students. He provided you with three days of paid duty time and a month of implementation to accomplish this end. In her last paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: Dr. Binnie will review the effectiveness of your plan, your professional conduct at work, and your future employment status during a meeting scheduled for Monday, November 1, 1999, at 3:45 pm in the Human Resources conference room, 2nd floor of the School Administration Center, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard. Ms. Brenda Griffin, your principal, has also been invited to attend. Ms. Velez testified that the November 1, 1999, meeting never occurred, "due to an error where [sic] his address was not in the system correctly, he was not in attendance at the meeting. So, we rescheduled it for November 3rd." Considering Mr. Merica was an employee with 13 years of service and had met four times with administration within a six-month period (July through October 1999), the loss of his address--"his address was not in the system correctly"--by the Board becomes suspect. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that: [O]n November 2nd her office received a call from Foster Elementary School regarding an incident in the hallway that teacher could hear Mr. Merica scream at a child and described that he was in their face and we removed Mr. Merica from teaching at that time for a continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament, creating a dangerous situation for children. (emphasis added) No witness presented by the Commissioner testified to having observed the incident above described by Ms. Velez. When subjected to cross-examination, Ms. Velez reluctantly admitted that her intentional use of the term “creating a dangerous situation for children" was not an accurate statement. During all times (1999-2000) pertinent to matters herein above, the goal of Principal Griffin, via Ms. Velez and through the Board, was to terminate Mr. Merica's employment with the Board. Thus, the HR manager's intentional selection and use of the statutory phrase, “creating a dangerous situation for children," that she knew at the time to be an inaccurate statement, revealed her intent and thus seriously undermined her credibility. The witness' credibility and testimony were further diminished by the fact that at the time she knowingly made her "inaccurate statement," she was an active participant in, and thus fully aware of, the Board's engagement in the procedural protocol process of terminating Mr. Merica's contractual employment. Ms. Velez's knowing misrepresentation, that Mr. Merica's continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament was "creating a dangerous situation for children," was biased and inaccurate. Ms. Velez's unconvincing explanation of her understanding of the factual basis for the School Board's removal of Mr. Merica from teaching at Foster was vague: [B]ased on a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children. When asked to clarify her inaccurate misrepresentation of whether or not Mr. Merica's conduct resulted in an unacceptable environment or created a dangerous situation for children, Ms. Velez stated: "[D]uring the five years Mr. Merica taught the PI student class [from 1992-1993 to 1998-1999], Mr. Merica’s conduct and teaching did not create an environment that was dangerous to the students in those classes." Ms. Velez further testified that "[T]the [Hillsborough County School] Board determined that it was during the 1999-20007 school year a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children, that Mr. Merica was creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Ms. Velez did not identify incidents that occurred August 12, 1999, through December 31, 1999, separate and apart from incidents that occurred between January 1, through May 24, 2000; thus, there is no basis to determine whether alleged incidents occurred in 1999 or 2000. Her testimony included "essential and substantial facts in support of the allegation" having occurred in a timeframe (1999- 2000) not embraced in the 1994-1999 period (ending December 31, 1999) alleged in the Statement of Charges of the Amended Administrative Complaint. "[T]the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." This ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. On that basis the testimony of Ms. Velez in findings 183 through 186, hereinabove is rejected. The Commissioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that during the period between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica "created a pattern of similar incidents thus creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Conversely, through the testimony of Ms. Velez, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that "during the 1992-1993 through the 1998-1999," including the 1994 through 1999 period alleged in the complaint, Mr. Merica did not engage in a pattern of similar incidents that created a dangerous situation for children." Regarding the school year when allegedly Mr. Merica initially became or his teaching methods demonstrated incompetence, Ms. Velez demonstrated a lack of knowledge and lack of expertise by her following qualified answer: It was my feeling--my personal and professional feeling when I reviewed the file--that he had indicators of incompetence for quite some time, especially in his personal conduct. I am not an expert in curriculum. It's been a long time since I taught in the classroom. [emphasis added] But Mr. Merica's statement to me was he's the best teacher that was at Foster Elementary, and I had an opportunity to look at his lesson plans one afternoon when I went to meet with Ms. Griffin and although I haven't written them in years, there were no lesson plans. They were subjects. Math, math, math. Nothing to distinguish between the levels of his children. When I reviewed the record at Foster, his conduct that created an uncomfortable working environment for employees had been there a long time. The former principal, Ms. Payne, had dealt with it from time to time. It's my professional opinion that she put him in physically impaired so he had less opportunity to be inappropriate with children, and she began then to deal with his personal conduct issues. So to answer your question, I believe -- I don't know that -- I don't know when it began, but I don't think it surfaced his last assignment at Foster, but rather sometime prior to that. [emphasis added] Ms. Velez was unable to identify the school year Mr. Merica became, as she characterized, "incompetent in his personal conduct." Ms. Velez's personal feeling of incompetence is an inadequate standard by which to measure professional competence, to include one’s personal conduct. Ms. Velez did not know when, if at all, Mr. Merica's alleged professional incompetence, to include his alleged personal conduct, began. The evidence of record established that the Board, as of January 13, 2000, had concluded its investigation and made a final determination that Mr. Merica was incompetent. Therefore, the Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, through the summary testimony of Ms. Velez that Mr. Merica was or to began to become incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 19997 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Violation of a penal statute or rule is not found on loose interpretations of the Human Resource Director with 31 total years of education experience and a Master's Degree in Education Administration, or based on problematic evidence. Evidence more objective and substantial of critical matters in issue should be as substantial as the consequences. Clear and convincing evidence is not present in this record nor established by testimony presented by this witness that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 1999 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez testified that teachers hired by contract (as was Mr. Merica), a veteran teacher, or a tenured teacher are required to be evaluated once annually by their principal, and the purpose of the principal's annual evaluation is for performance improvement. The testimony and documents prepared by Ms. Velez regarding a report from an unidentified mother about her unidentified child is unconfirmed, uncorroborated, incompetent, and thus insufficient to establish any purported facts of actual occurrence. Following protocol and to effectuate his contractual termination with the Board, on November 18, 1999, Ms. Velez submitted four of her letters, dated July 1, September 14 and 24, and October 20, 1999, to James A. Edgar, M.D., P.A., as the basis for her referral of Mr. Merica to Dr. Edgar for a psychiatric evaluation that was conducted by Dr. Edgar on November 18 and 23, 1999. Accepting as accurate and true the content of Ms. Velez's four letters and using those letters as the foundation of his examination, Dr. Edgar evaluated Mr. Merica. At the conclusion of his examination, Dr. Edgar opined that Mr. Merica did not have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, either Axis I or Axis II, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.). According to Dr. Edgar, "None of the problems, as reflected in Ms. Velez's summary taken from non-notarized reports from unnamed third parties, makes him in and of themselves incapable of functioning as a teacher." He then goes on to qualify his opinion with a "[H]owever, taken together they 'could' make him very difficult to work with as part of a team effort.” Dr. Edgar's evaluation resulted in a qualified conclusion that Mr. Merica is aware of his actions but minimizes or denies the effect of those actions on others and thus rationalizes his verbal aggressive behavior as his "constitutional right" to express his opinion. From that position, Dr. Edgar reaches what appears to be the desired conclusion that: "Mr. Merica's current behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same. I can not say whether he might become more aggressive or violent but I do believe his behavior will not improve." The attempt to lay a factual foundation that Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence was present in 1994 through the conclusiory testimony of Dr. Edgar failed for want of competence. The one line in Dr. Edgar's 1999 opinion that Mr. Merica's "behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same," is insufficient in weight and substance to establish as fact and/or establish the basis from which to infer, and I do not infer, that in 1994, Mr. Merica demonstrated an "aggressive behavior," which demonstrated emotional "incompetence," and that behavior continued through 1999 as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Response to Allegations Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Janice Wilson who worked as a DEES attendant at Foster from 1992 through 1998. Ms. Wilson was Mr. Merica's DEES attendant during the 1997-1998 school year and worked all day, five days a week, with Mr. Merica in his classroom when he taught PI students. She was not his DEES attendant when Mr. Merica taught SLD students. For the six-year period, 1992-1998, Ms. Wilson was in Mr. Merica’s classroom daily. She had occasion to observe his teaching as she worked with Mr. Merica. Based on her six-year association, Ms. Wilson testified as follows: When asked how would she characterize his rapport with his students, she answered: "wonderful, wonderful." When asked did she have problems or concerns working with Mr. Merica, she answered: "none, none, whatsoever." When asked had she ever observed Mr. Merica mistreating, in any way, students, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever see him getting in the faces of any of his students, she answered: "None whatsoever." When asked if she had observed Mr. Merica screaming at his students, she answered: "No." When asked if she would have any problems working with Mr. Merica in the future, she answered: "I would work with him any day." Regarding Mr. Merica leaving his classroom, Ms. Wilson testified that: When Mr. Merica would leave the classroom, he has been called from the front office or any other classroom for computer. If the computer goes down, he was the man that they will find to fix the problem with the computer. That's the only time he would leave the classroom, when they request they need it. To the question other than his lunch time and his planning period, did you know of Mr. Merica just to get up from the classroom and go walk around, she answered: "Not at all." When asked did Mr. Merica socialize, she answer: "Not at all." When asked did she ever know of Mr. Merica to be unprofessional, belligerent, hostile or confrontational, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever observe Mr. Merica trying to subvert the administration, she answered: "No." When asked how his students reacted to Mr. Merica, Ms. Wilson replied: Oh, they were glad to see him every day. I mean, a lot of times they would be hungry before lunch, and Mr. Merica would go to Sam's that night before and have snacks in the classroom to make sure they have snacks to eat before they went to lunch. I mean, he was a wonderful teacher. Nobody could never ask of --and I mean, he was outnumbered as male teachers at the school. There was only two, you know, and I think he was a wonderful teacher. Presence Outside His Classroom When asked if she personally received calls for Mr. Merica to assist someone with their computers, Ms. Wilson answered: Yes. It comes over the intercom and he always asked, will you be okay for five or ten minutes? Let me see what's wrong with the computer and that's the only time he would leave the classroom. When asked if she knew "specifically" where Mr. Merica went on computer calls, Ms. Wilson answered: The school has changed a lot with teachers. A lot of the teachers has left. A lot of times he would go to like an autistic class which is down the hallway from us. He would go to the room next door to us to help with the computer. Now, with names I'm not familiar with the teachers because like I said, the school has changed a lot since I've been there and maybe those teachers are not even working there. He used to help Rita Airwood (ph.) a lot with the computer because she wasn't--she didn't know where the power button was. Most of the teachers there didn't know where the power was. A lot of us would, after school, when all the kids were gone, we would have him to teach how to work the computer and be on task when the next day come. So, therefore, a lot of the teachers would come to our classroom to let Neil show them were the computer--what screen you start on and all before the next day because a lot of times we would get worksheets. We didn't have workbooks. A lot of times we would get worksheets off the computer. So when I say names, it's a whole bunch of names I would have to go through. When asked, "[h]ow do you personally know, from viewing him going to that room--witness him go to where he said he was going?" Ms. Wilson answered: Because we have windows. The aisles run from east to west. We have -- and I'm looking out the door to make sure he gets to that classroom. A lot of times when he gets to that classroom, he'll either do this here, a thumbs up, and he's on his way back. According to Ms. Wilson, she always knew where Mr. Merica went when he left his class because he would tell her before leaving; i.e. "They want me in the front office." "I need to be here." He would not just walk out of the class. Though she did not follow him out the classroom, she testified: A lot of times I would be doing bathroom and he would say, "Hey, I'll be right back." He may go and get a cup of tea and he's right back there helping me in the bathroom, because normally I think we had -- at the time I worked with him, we maybe four to five wheelchairs, and a lot of times he would give me help with the boys, you know, and then I would do the young ladies. I would take the girls first and he would stand right outside the bathroom and wait with them if I said I needed him, he'll come inside and help me. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Wilson, Mr. Merica established those purposes for his frequent departures from his classroom; to assist other teachers with computer problems in their classrooms. Whether or not one agrees with the stated purposes Mr. Merica gave for being out of his classroom, that fact does not affirm the Commissioner’s allegation of unprofessional conduct by his frequent presence outside his classroom. When asked if he was called upon by the Administration to provide technical computer assistance to the teachers Mr. Merica replied: Very often. I would not fix a computer unless it was on my planning time, unless it was instructed by the administration office, by Ms. Pils or Mr. Drennan--Ms. Payne, I'm sorry--or Ms. Drennan--that they needed me and it was a real emergency and I would also make sure with my class that there was the kind of instruction that wasn't going to hurt me to be pulled out for a few minutes. Regarding ACT training and physical restraint of students, Mr. Merica admitted that he received ACT training and was certified only for the 1995 school year. He was aware of the policy requirement of annual ACT re-certification, but he elected not to be re-certified. Mr. Merica admitted physically restraining students on approximately three to five separate occasions during the period of 1995 to 1999. When questioned as to his understanding of physically restraining students when his ACT certification had expired, Mr. Merica responded: That is not my understanding. I think another ESE teacher touched upon it that if a person is about to harm themselves or others or harm you, where you really feel that they're going to physically harm themselves, another student or yourself, then you can restrain them because what you are trying to do is keep a dangerous situation from becoming more dangerous. Mr. Merica denied having classroom behavior problems during his tenure as a SLD resource teacher (1987-1988 through 1992-1993 school years) as well as during his tenure as a PI resource teacher. Mr. Merica admitted engaging in disruptive conduct when attending faculty and staff meetings. He characterized his disruptive actions as "tapping a pencil on the table or tapping his fingers on the table," but denied "pounding his shoe on the table." He matter-of-factly acknowledged making arguably argumentative comments when he agreed or disagreed with some things presented by the speaker with callous disregard that the speaker was speaking. I find that such callous disregard of rendering reasonable respect to the person speaking and those of his colleagues in attendance under the circumstances demonstrated unprofessional conduct by Mr. Merica. I further find Mr. Merica's ". . . constitutional right" justification for unprofessional conduct unconvincing. Mr. Merica acknowledged he has a loud voice and a strong personality, and he is sometimes loud, but not "always" loud as testified by co-workers. Mr. Merica testified that he got along and related very well to the PI and the SLD students in his classes, and he believed they related very well to him and none of his children came to him personally with a complaint. According to Mr. Merica, during his tenure at Foster, he never received a written document from a parent that said "we have a complaint." Mr. Merica opined that other than academic concerns-- normal academic concerns--when he asked for a conference with parents of his children, a few parents would come on conference nights because most of the parents of his kids knew him because he had been there for a while. Regarding Principal Griffin's decision to move him from his PI resource class to a regular SLD class, Mr. Merica recalled that before summer school of the 1998-1999 school year, Principal Griffin and he discussed the matter. His recollection of their discussion follows: She basically said --she looked at my record and said, "As far as discipline goes -- I know we have some other issues, but as far as discipline goes, you look like somebody who could handle that class because it's very difficult class with mostly boys and we'd like to see a man in there,"--and to be perfectly honest, I told her I just went through a divorce. I needed stability. I would prefer to stay in PI or I would like a transfer, and unfortunately at that time, the transfer period was over or they had a freeze. It was one or the other. I think they might have had budget problems and had a freeze at the time. It was one of the two reasons.--It's just that I needed that stability and I hadn't done -- I had done resource before, and I've done PI, which I felt really comfortable in, but hadn't done a full time SLD unit. Even though I was qualified to do it, I just didn't really feel comfortable going into another area after the domestic problems I was having at home. I went through a divorce, which was not an easy thing, during that summer. (emphasis supplied) Mr. Merica's recall of Principal Griffin's comment, "[w]e'd like to see a man in there," was corroborated by Ms. Lipari testimony that during the 1997-1998 school year she was moved down to teach kindergarten and first grade level PI students to provide "mothering and maternal type activities," and Mr. Merica was moved to third/fourth grade to teach older, larger male students. Mr. Merica gave the following reason for resigning as CTA representative in the spring of school year 1998-1999: I resigned because there was undue pressure from the principal [Principal Griffin] and they actually were putting some pressure on my child that was going to that school. Concerning his role as a resource teacher, Mr. Merica stated: As a resource teacher, I had to implement the IEP that was generated by either me or a teacher before me, describing the amount of pullout time, and pullout means that they were in a "regular education class" and they were pulled out for special services. What special services I generally gave them was either math or reading, but it could be social studies or science. Those were rare occasions. Most of them were math or reading. You pull them out for the amounted time specified by the IEP at the level that the IEP indicates, and when that period of time during the day is over, you send them back or you walk them back. In Hillsborough County they had some problems at that time with kids running off campus, so they recommended that we pick up our students and take them back to class. Administrative Leave and Observation of Model Class According to Mr. Merica, on or about August 12, 1999, he was assigned to the SLD class and his last day in that class was November 2, 1999, a total of 83 days before he was placed on administrative leave for five work days plus the weekend. Mr. Merica's assignment by Foster administration to Lake Magdalene was for him to observe a class at Lake Magdalene similar to his SLD class at Foster. After he sat in the Lake Magdalene class for approximately two hours, he spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office trying to compile materials that would work for his SLD class. Mr. Merica concluded that the Lake Magdalene (SLD) class was not similar (as a model) to his Foster (SLD) class based on following reasons: I was working in an inner city school, this was a very rich, affluent area with totally different set of behavior problems. The makeup of the class was totally different. There were more girls. They were more [sic] white. It was just a totally different makeup. They were younger. And I sat in the classroom for about two hours and then I spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office supposedly trying to compile materials that would work for my class. Lock Down Drill and Student Running Out of Classroom Responding to questions raised about the "lockdown drill" situation when students were observed running from the classroom onto the PE field, Mr. Merica testified he was given a walkie-talkie because the school intercom system was down. He did not receive notification of the lockdown drill via the walkie-talkie, and so he was not made aware of the scheduled lockdown drill. The evidence is undisputed that students that were seen by his co-workers running "about" the facility during the lockdown drill were not under the supervision of Mr. Merica at that time. The evidence demonstrated those kids were in their scheduled PE class under the supervision of the PE teacher, who put them in "time-outs" and sent them to Mr. Merica for their "time-outs" periods. Undisputed evidence demonstrated and it is found as fact that during this "time-out" period that the incident of students kicking the ball and playing in the classroom and being generally unruly and disobedient that Mr. Merica had justifiable cause to defend himself when a student put his/her hands around his neck and attempted to choke him. His testimony regarding the conduct of students in his class was corroborated, in part, by the testimony of two students, Jarmaal Rumlin and Demetrie White. Mr. Merica denied yelling at either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. In defense of his voice volume, he characterized his discussions as "forceful," "assertive," and sometimes with a "loud voice." He described pointing of his finger as [u]nder normal conversation when some people use their hands, they might consider that pointing, were I was just, you know, just using my normal gestures of speaking, as far as I was concerned, and if I was pointing, it was only --again, it was not to be pointing at anybody. It might be, that's point number 1; that's point number 2; that's point number 3. Continuing, Mr. Merica said he never lost his temper at school with either principal, was never "out of control" with any students under his supervision, and never injured a student under his supervision. Mr. Merica's explanations for his finger-pointing and verbal barrages during conversations with authority figures evidenced a defensive attitude that did not lend itself to the appearance of a professional team player. Principal Payne did not testify that Mr. Merica pointed his finger in her face during their many meetings over the years. Principal Griffin's testimony of "pointing his finger in her face by Mr. Merica" was not accompanied by specific circumstances and situational context of the incidents. Accordingly, the appropriateness of such conduct, without evidence of each party's participation in the conversation and the specific circumstances and situational context at the time of occurrence, was not shown by the evidence of record to be, clearly and convincingly, inappropriate. Answering allegations of making derogatory or disrespectful remarks about Principal Payne or Principal Griffin, Mr. Merica replied: That's the eye of the beholder, but as far as I was concerned, I was just trying to make them a better person and there were some things that they were criticizing me about. I criticize people for things that I feel they have weaknesses too. So, you know, it's the eye of the beholder. Responding to Offered Assistance and Suggestions When asked if he had received assistance to help improve his classroom management techniques with regard to his regular SLD class, Mr. Merica replied: Yes. I always took suggestions and implemented every suggestion. Some things did work and some things did not work. You know, sometimes certain personalities -- certain things won't work and certain things will, but I certainly implemented every plan. Now, hey, I can even say this: some plans that I wasn't that good at and probably somebody else could have made it work -- maybe. But I know that some things I did that they implemented -- some things worked and some things didn't and I can even go further without trying to be editorializing that we learn from others. Some of the other teachers have suggestions --not just the ones from administration. There were some teachers that came up with some plans that worked for me. Mr. Merica's above recollection of receptivity and implementation of constructive assistance was confirmed through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman, who on three separate occasions documented specific improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom on each of her return visits. Use of Computer, Games, and Newspaper as Teaching Aids Answering those allegations regarding his use of video and computer games as teaching tools, Mr. Merica's undisputed response was: I said I never played them [video games] during instructional time. Students played them sometimes and it was part of the IEP. There were various video games. There was many of them and one they talked about a lot was the golf. But, you see, these kids have kinesthetic problems and we're trying to teach them how to manipulate the mouse, keyboards and other things. There was a racecar game that they used to use, plus it was good for their eye-hand coordination because they were kinesthetically challenged kids. They were in IEP. It was in the IEP that they were supposed to be kinesthetically challenged to whatever level they were to try to take them another year's worth. They didn't even call it grade level, but another year's worth of progress. They were approved, by the way. As far as I know, every game that I brought was approved by the school board or if it was not, nobody told me it was not. There was a list of computer software that you could use for kinesthetic(s), but the list was not always complete. There was also ones for learning and some of the software I even created myself and I made sure it was approved by the office before I even used it because I created it. I wrote it and I wanted to make sure that it was okay with them. But they were very, very, academic. Mine dealt more with reading and -- it never had any kinesthetic(s) in it at all. So mine was easy to approve. ---I knew the list, but again the list -- it even says it does not include all the new software. It does not include all the new software. There are ones that we know about. And the same thing with video list. They had a video list. They have a video list, but it also said under these circumstances, these are -- generally a "G" movie is approved, but you know -- the list was always being compiled. It was always new it always had a little thing in there like, we may be incomplete, check with your principal. Answering the question, "[w]hat is kinesthetic?" Mr. Merica stated: Kinesthetic is using hand-eye coordination. They are physically impaired kids. Some of them were trying -- they might even some kind of physical deformity or nerve damage or cerebral palsy and they were trying to get them to manipulate their hands. Mr. Merica's selections of newspapers, computer games, and specific TV programs as associative resource educational tools for his students were undeniably appropriate resource materials and activities related to learning goals for his students with various learning and physical disabilities. No witness for the Commissioner, including Principal Griffin, the ART, and the ESE specialists, testified to the contrary. Mr. Merica denied that he had sexually harassed his co-workers, and his denials were confirmed by the testimonies of the alleged victims who were called to testify by the Commissioner. He denied "being off task when in the classroom." He denied playing video games in class during teaching and instruction time. Mr. Merica's denials of essential elements in the Amended Administrative complaint, even if unbelievable, does not prove the accusations. The burden remains with the Commissioner. Answering the allegation of "reading the newspaper in class," Mr. Merica stated: If there was a current event and we were talking about current events or -- the kids even had papers at that time, so we have used the paper in an educational way in the school before. Answering the allegation of allowing his class to watch the television program, The Price is Right, Mr. Merica stated: That's a possibility, because at one time in PI, our kids were not going to the lunchroom. They were served lunch in the room. Well, that was a time where I was not present. It was the aides on attendance. It was their duty. That was my time. I have a duty-free lunch is what they call it. It's part of the contract. I didn't always take that time. They knew if they needed help, I would help. If there was some special function going on or something like that, I would not necessarily go to lunch. But as a general rule I did do lunch, and those kids were in the room and sometimes the TV was on and the news during lunch period. It was lunch period for the children, too. Mr. Merica added that he was not aware of any prohibition against putting the TV on during the children's lunch period. Answering his attorney's question why he placed a "Do you need a Sub?" note (the Board's Exhibit 62) in some but not all his co-workers mailboxes, Mr. Merica stated: That's self-explanatory. It says: "Do you need a sub? If so please call Mr. Merica at 985-0203. Do not call before 6:00 a.m., or, you will have to deal with me personally. Can you spell DEAD?" I put it in a few teachers' mailboxes--friends mainly--I'm not a sub. People know that. The people that I gave this to know that I was not a sub. It's obviously a joke. The joke means that I don't think its appropriate to call anybody before 6:00 a.m. in the morning, you know, to disturb their family.--- As far as I know, they wanted to have a new policy because the secretaries didn't want to have to deal with sub calls anymore. So they said to start calling the subs before 6:00 o'clock in the morning to make sure they get there, and by the way, it doesn't say--can you spell dead? That's a little inside pedagogy, whatever you want to call it. It's a little inside teaching joke. "I hope you can spell." Based on the situations and circumstances at the time he engaged in activities and conduct in findings 206 through 211 and findings 229 through 234, I find Mr. Merica's explanations were plausible, reasonable, and within a teacher's authority and obligation to be creative and innovative by providing one or more methods of training to attain specific individual educational goals, based upon the physical and/or mental limitations of students and in concert with the educational goals as stated in their respective IEPs. Realizing that Foster administration and the Board were in the process of terminating his employment contract at the next Board meeting, Mr. Merica wrote a November 2, 1999, memorandum to Dr. Binnie and Principal Griffin, suggesting that he be transferred (to another school) as an alternative solution. The request of transfer was denied. By letter of January 13, 2000, Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent, the Board, suspended Mr. Merica with pay until the Board meeting on January 18, 2000, at which point his contractual employment with the School Board was terminated. The School Board's annual renewal of Mr. Merica's yearly contract of employment during Principal Payne's tenure as principal of Foster provides a reasonable inference, and I so infer, that the 2000 termination of Mr. Merica's annual contractual employment was based primarily upon issues that were identified and raised by Principal Griffin during the mid-1998 through 2000 period when she, and not Ms. Payne, was principal at Foster. There is no evidence of record that Foster brought to the attention of the Board or that the Board considered allegations of or findings of professional misconduct that had occurred during the 1994 through 1998 time period when Ms. Payne was principal at Foster Elementary. Amended Administrative Complaint Material Allegations Paragraph 3(a) The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica, at unspecified times, demonstrated heightened anger while conferencing with Principal Payne. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that between 1998 and 1999,8 Mr. Merica yelled at Principal Griffin while conferencing with her as alleged in Paragraph 3(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. I do not find that Mr. Merica "pointed his finger in his principal's face and being emotionally out of control while conferencing with Principal Griffin." The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica failed or refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Payne during her tenure as principal at Foster during the period of 1994 through mid 1998 or that Mr. Merica refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Griffin during her tenure from mid-1998 through 1999, as alleged in paragraph 3(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks specifically about Principal Payne or specifically about Principal Griffin to and in the presence of his co-workers as alleged in paragraph 3(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 4 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica rejected constructive criticism and assistance from those whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance as alleged in paragraph 4(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the reliable evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, specifically in the mid and latter part of the 1999 calendar year, Mr. Merica accepted and responded positively to constructive criticism and offers of assistance from those whose position required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that on unspecified dates between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by speaking aloud; speaking to co-workers, sometimes argumentatively; and interrupting speakers when they were speaking during faculty meetings as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by banging on tables and by making subversive and derogatory statements about the administration, in the presence of students and parent and faculty as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 5 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, during February 1999 as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, an intern and teacher at Foster as alleged in paragraph 5(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica sexually harassed co-worker, K.R., a teacher at Foster Elementary as alleged in paragraph 5(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 6 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica frequently left his class with his aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students as alleged in paragraph 6(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material evidence proved on those occasions, recalled by Mr. Merica and his DEES attendant who was an on-scene observer, that his absences from his classroom were for legitimate purposes within his obligations as a professional teacher in the Hillsborough County school system. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica's use of alternative methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment to teach his students were "ineffective teaching tools and student management" as alleged in paragraph 6(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence proved that Mr. Merica's use of other supportive, available, and permissible means and methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment for stimulating his PI students' interest were effective teaching tools. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, the factual basis to support allegations that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica (1) utilized ineffective lesson plans, (2) utilized ineffective behavioral management plans, (3) failed to keep students academically engaged, and (4) failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class as alleged in paragraph 6(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7 The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica restrained students without the required ACT certification as alleged in paragraph 7(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence proved that Mr. Merica restrained "unruly" students and restrained "a student" in defense of his personal safety and that of other students in the time-out class incident herein found. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica yelled in the faces of students as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Through the testimony of two students, Demetrie White and Jarmaal Rumlin, it is clear when Mr. Merica was yelling in their face(s) it was, in part, to be heard over their yelling at him and/or each other when they were kicking the ball and playing during time-out. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica exhibited out-of-control or emotional forms of discipline as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained one unruly large male ESE student that was not enrolled in his class without a request from the teacher who was responsible for the class, as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7(d) was withdrawn by the Commissioner. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica's teaching and student behavior management was ineffective, including: frequently leaving his class with aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students. when in his class, frequently playing video games on his computer, reading a newspaper, or reviewing architectural designs. utilizing ineffective lesson plans and behavioral management plans, failing to keep students academically engaged, and failing to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica restrained unruly students without the required ACT certification. The evidence demonstrated that in each proven encounter of unruly student restraint, Mr. Merica acted to protect the unruly student, other classmates, and, on two occasions, protect himself and another colleague. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student who was not enrolled in his class without waiting for the female teacher to ask for such assistance as alleged in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence demonstrated and it is found that by restraining the unruly male student, Mr. Merica prevented possible potential injury to the unruly student, to the female teacher, to the grandmother volunteer, and to other students of both classes who were present in the hallway at the time of the incident. Paragraph 7(d), alleging inappropriate discipline of several students on or about September 23, 1999, was withdrawn by Petitioner. Paragraph 8 The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, allegations in paragraph 8 of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent met with his principal and county employees to discuss and received letters of reprimand for each act alleged in paragraphs 1 through 7 of the Amended Administrative Compliant. Paragraph 9 The Commissioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Board terminated Respondent's contractual employment as a teacher with Hillsborough County in 2000. The burden of proof required to terminate a contract of employment is not the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof standard required to revoke a license. The Commissioner offered no documented proof, however, proving the Board's decision was based specifically on the allegations found in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. There is no documented evidence of record that identifies the specific basis upon which the ultimate determination to terminate Mr. Merica's 2000 school year employment contract was made by the Board. The Commissioner did not prove, clearly and convincingly, by material and relevant evidence of record, the allegations that "[E]ffective September 22, 2000, the school board terminated Respondent's employment on charges on [sic] insubordination, persistent violation or willful refusal to obey laws or policies relating to the public schools, and failure to demonstrate competency relating to the instruction, evaluation and management of students in accordance with accepted standards," as alleged in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order finding Respondent, Neil Merica, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), and imposing the following penalties: Suspend Respondent's right of renewal of his teacher certificate and place Respondent on probation for a period of three years, to require successful completion of an anger management course and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify upon re-application under existing requirements for certification by the State Board at the time the suspension expires. Impose a fine on Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 for violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), to be paid prior to or at the time of re-application for certification, and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 31st day of March, 2005.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At the time the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, Mr. Tullos held Florida teaching certificate number 165642, covering the areas of administration and physical education, which was to expire in June 1995. 2/ At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Tullos was employed as an assistant principal of student services at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") in the Palm Beach County School District. He was employed pursuant to a three-year contract commencing in July 1990 and terminating in July 1993. 3/ Mr. Tullos has been employed since 1965 at what is now known as Glades Central, where he served as dean of boys until the title was changed to assistant principal some twelve years ago. He received appreciation awards for his work with students at Glades Central every year from 1987 through May 1991. Mr. Tullos has had regular contact with female students for many years in his positions as dean of boys and assistant principal of student services. In September 1991, Calvin Taylor issued a "Warning Letter" to Mr. Tullos expressing concerns about his behavior with students. At the time, Mr. Taylor was assistant superintendent for personnel relations with the Palm Beach County School Board. The letter was issued following an informal hearing regarding complaints from several students. These complaints were basically the same as those which are the subject of the instant proceeding. Mr. Taylor's role was to hear the evidence and determine what type of discipline to recommend to the school superintendent. Upon consideration of the evidence presented by the school board investigator and by Mr. Tullos, Mr. Taylor recommended that the appropriate discipline was the issuance of the "Warning Letter." In the letter, Mr. Tullos was admonished to "[b]e very careful about the manner in which you touch and associate with students." In May 1992, Mr. Tullos received an "At Expectation" performance evaluation from Dr. Effie C. Grear, principal of Glades Central. During the 1992-1993 school year, Mr. Tullos was one of three assistant principals at Glades Central and was assigned to work with all ninth-grade students. Lois Lewis and Willie McDonald, the other two assistant principals, were assigned to work with all tenth-grade and one-half of the eleventh-grade students and with all twelfth-grade and one-half of the eleventh-grade students, respectively. Mr. Tullos's duties included student discipline, monitoring the halls and cafeterias, loading and unloading students on the school buses, issuing passes, making arrangements for medical care for students injured on campus and contacting the parents, making arrangements to have unruly students removed from campus, and performing teacher evaluations. Each school day, Mr. Tullos monitored the cafeteria during breakfast. When the bell rang for first period, he, Ms. Lewis, and another school administrator monitored the halls and wrote late passes for students who were tardy. Mr. Tullos wrote a pass for any student who approached him, regardless of grade level. Once the halls cleared, Mr. Tullos usually returned to his office, where he wrote passes for other late students who came to his office and worked on discipline referrals. Mr. Tullos and Ms. Lewis also monitored the cafeteria during the two lunch periods. For most of his work day, Mr. Tullos worked in his office on student discipline referrals, averaging fifty to sixty per week. Discipline referrals are made by teachers, who complete a form giving an explanation of the disciplinary problem with a particular student; the form is normally given to the student who is the subject of the referral, who must take it to the assistant principal assigned to work with the students of his or her grade. Sometimes, teachers ask a student to take a discipline referral form to the office even though that student is not the subject of the referral. Mr. Tullos conducted a conference with the students and/or parents for all referrals within his jurisdiction. Student W. K. 4/ W. K. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She was often in trouble at school during that year and had many discipline referrals. Since she was in the ninth grade, she took the referrals to Mr. Tullos, so she came into frequent contact with him. One day, after she had been repeatedly late to one particular class, she and another student, S. S., were sent to Mr. Tullos's office with discipline referrals. When W. K. was alone with Mr. Tullos in his office, he commented on her legs, saying something to the effect that she had "fine" legs or that her "fine" legs could carry her to class on time, and he told her that she shouldn't be late to class. She thought nothing of the remark about her legs because she had known Mr. Tullos in the community since she was a child and had known him as a nice man. On two other occasions when she was in his office with discipline referrals, Mr. Tullos told her that he would "smooch" her if she got another referral. She understood this to mean that he would kiss her, but, again, she thought nothing of the remark because she did not take it in a negative way. She thought that being kissed by Mr. Tullos would be disgusting and that he was threatening to kiss her so she would not get into trouble again. W. K. had heard other girls talk about Tullos but she never saw him do the things they described. She also heard around school that girls who took discipline referrals to Tullos wouldn't get in trouble. W. K. did not take offense at Mr. Tullos's comment about her legs or his threats to smooch her, but she did think that this behavior was not appropriate for a school administrator. Although she talked about the incidents to all her friends at school, she did not go to anyone in authority to complain. At some point during the 1992-1993 school year, Ms. Lewis, the assistant principal in charge of the tenth- and part of the eleventh-grade students, called her in and asked her about the incidents with Mr. Tullos and asked if she knew any other students who had similar experiences. Shortly after she spoke with Ms. Lewis, she was called into the office of LaVoise Smith, the guidance coordinator at Glades Central, where she told Ms. Smith about the incidents. Student S. S. S. S. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She now attends the Choice school, which is in the Palm Beach County School District. As noted in paragraph 11 above, S. S. was the student who was sent with W. K. to Mr. Tullos's office with discipline referrals for being repeatedly late to one class. According to S. S., when she and W. K. were both in Mr. Tullos's office, he told them that they had pretty legs and were pretty girls. She could not, however, remember his exact words. She felt uncomfortable when he commented on her legs because she had heard other girls talk about Mr. Tullos and the things he would say to them. On another occasion, a teacher asked S. S. to take a discipline referral on another student to Mr. Tullos's office. When she entered his office, he glanced at the form in her hand and told her that, if the referral was for her, he would have to "smooch" her to make her do better. As S. S. was leaving Mr. Tullos's office, Mr. Tullos was leaving as well. S. S. went out of the door first, and Mr. Tullos stopped her by touching the top of her shoulder. When she turned around, his hand dropped to brush the top of her breast. She is not certain that he deliberately dropped his hand from her shoulder. Several times when Mr. Tullos saw S. S. with her boyfriend, he would tell the boyfriend to "leave that girl alone" or something to that effect. Even though he made these remarks in a joking manner, S. S. felt uncomfortable. In fact, she felt uncomfortable "every time he said something." In yet another incident, S. S. and Mr. Tullos were standing in the hallway outside his office when Mr. Tullos told her that her boyfriend was no good for her and that she should give all her "good loving" to him. After this last incident, S. S. and some of her friends discussed their experiences with Mr. Tullos. They decided that someone had to go to the office and report Mr. Tullos's behavior. Shortly after one of the girls reported Mr. Tullos to Ms. Smith, S. S. was called into Ms. Smith's office and interviewed. Student Y. J. Y. J. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime around Christmas, Y. J. was in the cafeteria at lunchtime and asked Mr. Tullos for a quarter. He responded by asking what she would give him in return. She did not know what he meant by this remark, but it made her feel uncomfortable. On another occasion, Mr. Tullos had scheduled a conference with Y. J.'s mother to discuss a discipline referral. Y. J. forgot to tell her mother about the conference, and she used the telephone in Mr. Tullos's office to call her. Y. J. was wearing a low-cut v-necked shirt and a necklace which hung in the cleavage of her breasts. While she was on the telephone, Mr. Tullos commented that the necklace was "a pretty charm," and he reached over and picked the necklace up. As he did so, his hand "slightly" brushed her breast. She was alone with Mr. Tullos in his office, and he was sitting behind the desk while she was standing on the side of the desk. Y. J. does not know if he touched her breast intentionally, and she did not report the incident to school authorities. Sometime around Easter, Y. J. took a discipline referral to Mr. Tullos. They were alone in his office. He asked her when she was going stop giving her "loving to the guys and give him some." This made Y. J. so uncomfortable that she reported the incident to Ms. Lewis either the same day or the next day. After this last incident, but before she went to Ms. Lewis, she talked with a group of her friends about Mr. Tullos's behavior. Several of the girls claimed to have had similar experiences with Mr. Tullos, and some of them said that they blackmailed Mr. Tullos into giving them what they wanted by threatening to tell the administration about his behavior. Up until this time, however, none of the girls had reported Mr. Tullos. When Y. J. said she was going to go to Ms. Lewis to complain, several of the other girls said they would complain also. Y. J. spoke with Ms. Lewis, who sent her to Ms. Smith, the school's guidance coordinator. Y. J. gave Ms. Smith the names of the other girls she knew who had encounters with Mr. Tullos, and they were called in to talk with Ms. Smith. Student T. S. T. S. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She knew Mr. Tullos because teachers would ask her to take discipline referrals regarding other students to him and because she would ask him for a late pass if he was the first dean she saw in the hall. On several occasions during the 1992-1993 school year, when T. S. approached Mr. Tullos in the hall to obtain a late pass, Mr. Tullos made her wait until last, when there were not many people in the hallways. He then made remarks to her which made her feel uncomfortable, such as telling her after spring break that he missed her, telling her that he was jealous because he saw her hugging a boy (her cousin) in the hall, and telling her that she had to give him a kiss in order to get a late pass. She did not think he was joking about giving him a kiss because he said it on several different occasions. These remarks made her feel very uncomfortable. On "about" four occasions, when she approached him in the hall to obtain a late pass and he made her wait until last, Mr. Tullos hugged her. She felt very uncomfortable because these were not "ordinary" hugs like other teachers gave; rather, "[w]hen he grabbed me he just rubbed." On yet another occasion, a teacher asked T. S. to take a discipline referral regarding another student to Mr. Tullos. She took the referral to his office, and he told her to close the door. She felt that this was not necessary, and she gave him the referral and left his office. T. S. did not discuss her experiences with Mr. Tullos with her girl friends at school, nor did she personally report him. She eventually told her mother, who called the school to report Mr. Tullos's behavior. Student N. B. N. B. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime during that year, N. B. went to Mr. Tullos's office with a discipline referral. She has a lot of jewelry and was wearing several necklaces on that day. He was sitting behind his desk, and she was standing across from him, in front of the desk. Mr. Tullos asked N. B. to give him one of her necklaces, and she told him no. He then asked if she would give him "something else," and reached over the desk as if to grab one of the necklaces. N. B. had heard that Mr. Tullos got "fresh" with girls, and she stepped back and left his office. N. B. went directly to Ms. Lewis's office and told her about this last incident. Afterwards, she talked with Ms. Smith. N. B. did not discuss the incident with her girl friends until after she had spoken with Ms. Lewis. Student T. F. T. F. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime during that school year, T. F. had a "stop order" issued against her because she had missed detention. In order to go back to class, she had to obtain a pass from Mr. Tullos, which she would take to each of her teachers. She went to Mr. Tullos's office, and, when she asked for the pass, he asked her what she would give him. T. F. took this as a "sexual gesture" because of the way he said it and the way he looked at her; she did not respond. Mr. Tullos then called her aunt for an explanation of why she missed detention and gave her the pass. During the incident, she and Mr. Tullos were alone in his office. On another occasion, Mr. Tullos caught N. B. cutting into the lunch line. He pulled her out of the line and took her ten to twenty feet away from the line. He remarked that her boyfriend must be teaching her to do "stuff like that" and told her that she wasn't supposed to have any boyfriend but him. He also asked if she would go out to dinner with him and if she was ashamed to ride in his truck. He did not specify a date or time for dinner but asked if she liked Red Lobster. She turned down the invitation and walked away. During this exchange, T. F. and Mr. Tullos were standing in the cafeteria, which was packed at the time with students eating lunch. Although Mr. Tullos was not whispering to her, he was not talking loudly, either. On another occasion, she and a girl friend were in the hall, and they asked Mr. Tullos for a quarter so they could use the telephone. He responded by asking what they were going to give him in return. They told him to keep his quarter and borrowed a quarter from a friend. T. F. had heard from other students about Mr. Tullos's behavior, but she decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. A few weeks after the incident involving T. F. related in paragraph 39 above, the incident described in paragraph 26 above occurred between her friend, Y. J., and Mr. Tullos. After she heard about this, T. F. told her aunt and Y. J. about her encounters with Mr. Tullos. She and Y. J. talked it over and decided to talk with Ms. Lewis. Student M. R. M. R. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. M. R. was late for class many times. On one occasion during the second half of the school year, she approached Mr. Tullos for a late pass. He told her that he would give her an "unexcused" pass but that, if she gave him a hug, he would give her an "excused" pass. She refused to give him a hug, and he gave her an "unexcused" pass. She did not think anything of this incident; she just took her pass and went to class. 5/ M. R. did not report the incident, but, at some point, she spoke to Ms. Smith about it. Ms. Smith has been employed as guidance coordinator at Glades Central for the past nine years. One of her duties is to work with female students who have problems. On May 3, 1993, Y. J., S. S., and T. F. came to Ms. Smith complaining that Mr. Tullos had made improper comments to them and/or had touched them in a way that they thought was inappropriate and that made them uncomfortable. When she asked if there were any other students who had similar experiences with Mr. Tullos, she was given several names. She called these students to her office and, from them, got the names of still other students. She spent the day interviewing all of the students whose names she had been given, and she took statements from ten students who she thought had complaints which should be further investigated. At the end of the day, she telephoned the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the school board's security office to report the complaints. She also talked with Dr. Grear, the principal of Glades Central, and gave her the statements she had obtained. Dr. Grear handled the investigation from this point forward. In a performance evaluation dated May 28, 1993, Dr. Grear rated Mr. Tullos "At Expectation," commenting that he "works well with other members of the administrative staff and faculty." Mr. Tullos's behavior toward the seven students who testified at the hearing was unprofessional and inappropriate. The evidence is clear and convincing that his conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. He repeatedly committed serious offenses against students who had been given into his care, and he exposed himself to the derision of the students who had been the objects of his indecent remarks and touches. His behavior was the subject of discussion among students, and some students even claimed to have gotten special treatment because they threatened to report him. The evidence is also clear and convincing that he harassed the seven students who testified at the hearing on the basis of their sex. He made remarks to them which were explicitly or implicitly sexual in nature, and he touched several of them in ways which were improper and offensive. 6/ Mr. Tullos's conduct made several of the seven students who testified at the hearing uncomfortable and/or angry, but others either did not take him seriously or were not bothered by his behavior. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the students' scholastic endeavors were affected or that they suffered any mental or physical harm as a result of his actions. The lack of mental harm was also apparent from the demeanor of the students as they testified at the hearing. Likewise, there is no clear and convincing evidence that any of the students were exposed to embarrassment or disparagement as a result of Mr. Tullos's actions; in fact, most of the students testifying at the hearing willingly and openly discussed their experiences with their friends at school. And, while he may have tried to exploit his relationship with the seven students as the assistant principal in charge of their grade, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Tullos obtained any personal gain or advantage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Virgil Wayne Tullos guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board of Palm Beach County, in violation of section 231.28(1)(f), and of harassing students W. K, S. S., Y. J., S., N. B., T. F., and M. R. on the basis of sex, in violation of rule 6B- 1.006(3)(g) and, therefore, of section 231.28(1)(i). It is further RECOMMENDED that the following administrative sanctions be imposed: Suspension of Mr. Tullos's teaching certificate for a period of one (1) year; and, Upon reinstatement of his teaching certificate, placement of Mr. Tullos on probation for a period of three (3) years, with Mr. Tullos being required, as a condition of probation, to submit to psychological examination and to any recommended treatment through the recovery network program established in section 231.263, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1996.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner's allegations regarding Respondent schoolteacher's purported performance deficiencies are, in fact, true, thereby justifying Petitioner's placing Respondent on statutory performance probation; (2) If the first question is answered in the affirmative, then, Whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected the specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether Respondent's employment should be continued or terminated.
Findings Of Fact Material Historical Facts At all times material to this case, Respondent Samuel K. Young ("Young") was a teacher in the Palm Beach County School District ("District"). From 1993 until July 2003, when Respondent Palm Beach County School Board ("Board") suspended him without pay, Young taught English at the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. School of the Arts ("Dreyfoos"), a magnet high school for students interested in an arts-centered education. In August or early September of 2001, shortly after the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, one of the Assistant Principals at Dreyfoos, Tanya Daniel, began routinely to observe Young, on an "informal" basis, while he was teaching his classes. These unscheduled, informal observations were triggered by students' complaints, of which Ms. Daniel, as Young's immediate supervisor, had been the recipient or been made aware. As time passed, the informal observations became increasingly formal. On October 25, 2001, Ms. Daniel conducted a formal evaluation of Young, using the Summative Observation Instrument, which is a tool that was developed for the Florida Department of Education's Florida Performance Measurement System. Another Assistant Principal, Leo Barrett, also started formally observing Young's classes. By early December 2001, Ms. Daniel had come to the conclusion that Young was not performing his teaching responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, Ms. Daniel believed that Young was deficient in the areas of classroom management; presentation and organization; planning; student assessment; obedience to policies and procedures; and maintenance of the learning environment. Two points are especially notable about Ms. Daniel's negative assessment of Young. First, she placed considerable reliance on student feedback. Indeed, Ms. Daniel invited and encouraged Young's students to report to her on how he was doing in the classroom. Second, she did not rely upon student performance as measured, in accordance with Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes, by state and/or local assessments. On January 8, 2002, as a result of Ms. Daniel's evaluation, the Principal of Dreyfoos, Ellen Van Arsdale, placed Young on school-level performance probation pursuant to the procedures spelled out in the Classroom Teacher Assessment System (CTAS) Evaluation Handbook (the "CTAS"). (Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, effective July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2005 (the "Union Contract"), the District is required to conduct formal evaluations of teachers "in keeping with" the 1999 CTAS.) The CTAS provides that a teacher whose performance is found deficient must be afforded at least 30 calendar days to improve his performance to a satisfactory level. During that time, the teacher must be given "school-site assistance" to help him correct the identified performance deficiencies. Accordingly, a 30-day School-Site Assistance Plan was developed for Young and put into effect on January 8, 2002. The school-level performance probation that began in January 2002 constituted a new phase in the evaluation process. The purpose of the first phase, which lasted about three months (from September through December 2001), purportedly was to determine whether Young's performance was satisfactory or not. Thus, the first-phase evaluators should not have assumed at the outset that Young's performance was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In contrast, during the second phase, the evaluators worked from the initial premise that Young's performance was, in fact, unsatisfactory, in the several areas noted by Ms. Daniel. The focus, therefore, was on whether Young was improving sufficiently to correct deficiencies that were assumed to exist. Throughout the school-level probationary period, a number of evaluators reviewed Young's performance. Ms. Van Arsdale conducted several evaluations, and Mr. Barrett performed at least one. Another was conducted by Dr. Lisa Troute, a Curriculum Specialist with the District. Others, too, were involved. None of the evaluators questioned the conclusion, which was based largely on Ms. Daniel's opinions, that Young's performance actually was deficient. Ms. Daniel did not observe Young's classroom performance during this second phase, evidently in consequence of Young's having voiced some concerns about her impartiality. Ms. Daniel remained an important participant in the process, however, and she continued actively to solicit students' opinions about Young's competence. On February 20, 2002, she interviewed at least three of Young's students, making handwritten notes (which are in evidence) to memorialize their respective assessments. Ms. Daniel asked one student to rate Young's performance on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being "poor" and 10 being "great"; the student gave Young a 3.5. There is no evidence that Ms. Daniel elicited the opinions of a random, representative sample of Young's students——or instead, for example, polled only the known malcontents. There is also no persuasive evidence that Ms. Daniel ever did anything but accept the students' mostly unfavorable opinions uncritically. What the evidence does establish is that Ms. Daniel put great weight on the students' opinions——so much so that the students she spoke with effectively became Young's evaluators themselves. The school-level probationary period was extended well beyond 30 days, and ended up lasting until the end of the 2001- 02 school year. By letter dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale informed the Superintendent that Young's performance remained unsatisfactory after 91 days of school-site assistance. Specifically, it was Ms. Van Arsdale's opinion that Young's performance was deficient in the following six areas, each of which is a designated "indicator" of competence under the CTAS: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; Assessment; and Policies/Procedures/Ethics. Ms. Van Arsdale asked the Superintendent to place Young on statutory performance probation for 90 days, pursuant to Sections 231.29 and 231.36, Florida Statutes (2001). The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young during the school-level probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. In fact, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. Nevertheless, the Superintendent acceded to Ms. Van Arsdale's request. By letter dated May 20, 2002, the Superintendent notified Young that he would be placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days. The statutory performance probation——a distinct, third phase of the evaluation process——commenced in August 2002, at the beginning of the 2002-03 school year. On August 22, 2002, Young was given a Professional Development Plan, which called for the provision of assistance, as well as ongoing evaluations, through November 2002, when a final evaluation would be issued passing judgment on whether he had——or had not——corrected the alleged performance deficiencies. The statutory performance probation unfolded largely as had the school-level performance probation. Young was, again, observed and critiqued by a number of evaluators. Of the written evaluations in evidence, the most balanced is a report dated September 22, 2002, which Dr. Troute prepared concerning her observation of Young on September 10, 2002. Based on this contemporaneous report, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Trout then believed Young was a "satisfactory" teacher who could, with additional effort, be a "good" teacher. Others were less charitable, however, including Ms. Van Arsdale, who prepared Young's final evaluation based on her November 5, 2002, observation of his class. On the CTAS's evaluation form, Ms. Van Arsdale gave Young a rating of "concern" on five separate "indicators" of competence: Management of Student Conduct; Presentation of Subject Matter; Learning Environment; Planning; and Assessment. This resulted in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." The assessment procedure used to evaluate Young while he was on statutory performance probation was not primarily based on the performance of students as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes. Indeed, once again, the evaluators placed no meaningful weight on student performance, so measured. By letter dated November 6, 2002, Ms. Van Arsdale notified the Superintendent that, in her opinion, Young had failed to correct performance deficiencies and therefore should be fired. The Superintendent agreed, and by letter dated November 14, 2002, informed Young that he would recommend to the Board that Young's employment be terminated. The Board later accepted the Superintendent's recommendation, and Young was suspended without pay, effective on or about July 16, 2003, pending his discharge. The CTAS A. Teachers who are evaluated under the CTAS are rated on 15 categories of qualities or abilities, which are referred to collectively as "indicators." Each indicator, such as, e.g., Management of Student Conduct, is best understood not as a single ability, but rather as a label for a skill-set, that is, a collection of qualities, abilities, or skills. The indicators are divided into two classes called "performance areas." The performance areas are: "A. Teaching and Learning" and "B. Professional Responsibilities." There are eight indicators under Teaching and Learning and seven under Professional Responsibilities. The CTAS uses a two-point rating scale. The only grades used for scoring a teacher on the 15 indicators are "acceptable" and "concern." The section of the CTAS's evaluation form where the grades are recorded is reproduced below, with the ratings from Ms. Van Arsdale's final evaluation of Young, dated November 6, 2002, added to show how the form is used in practice: A. TEACHING AND LEARNING ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 1. Management of Student Conduct X 2. Human Development and Learning X 3. Presentation of Subject Matter X 4. Communication X 5. Knowledge of Subject Matter X 6. Learning and Environment X 7. Planning X 8. Assessment X B. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTABLE CONCERN 9. Technology X 10. Record Keeping X 11. Continuous Improvement X 12. Working Relationships with Coworkers X 13. Working Relationships with Parents X 14. Policies/Procedures/Ethics X 15. Duties as Assigned by the School Administration X The teacher's overall evaluation rating of "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" depends entirely upon the combination of ratings awarded on the 15 indicators. The following combinations require an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory": NUMBER OF CONCERNS SECTION A SECTION B 3 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 As can be seen, the indicators under Section A carry greater relative weight in the overall evaluation than those under Section B. Because Young received five "concerns" on his final evaluation, the CTAS dictated that he be given an overall "unsatisfactory" rating. In rating the various indicators, evaluators are supposed to consider numerous "performance criteria." The CTAS defines the "performance criteria" as "examples of descriptors which define the indicators." To be more precise, the performance criteria are specific behaviors, acts, and practices that the teacher should be performing as an outward manifestation of the teacher's command or mastery of the respective skill-sets known as indicators. Various performance criteria are set out in the CTAS as "bullet points" under each of the indicators. The first bullet point under the first indicator (Management of Student Conduct), for example, is: "[The teacher] specifies and explains rules of conduct and provides for practice of rules when appropriate." For each of the indicators, the CTAS further provides a set of "data collection sources." The CTAS defines the term "data collection sources" as "examples of multiple data sources used to determine a rating of 'acceptable' or 'concern.'" In other words, the data collection sources are lists of "evidence" that can be examined to determine whether, and perhaps how well, the teacher is performing the prescribed performance criteria. For example, the data collection sources for the indicator Planning are: observation reports; lesson plans; conference notes; assessment data; instructional materials; and written reports. B. As we have seen already, the CTAS defines the terms "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory" in a completely objective fashion. It does so by specifying the rating combinations that will result in an overall evaluation of "unsatisfactory." Thus, anyone who knows the number of "concerns" that a teacher has received in Sections A and B can apply the formula and assign the overall grade; this ministerial function requires neither discretion nor judgment. What does demand discretion and judgment is rating the teacher's command or mastery of the respective indicators as either "concern" or "acceptable." This rating function requires that qualitative determinations be made at two distinct levels. First, for every indicator (skill-set), the evaluator must decide how well the teacher is executing each of the several subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors). Then, based on how well the teacher is executing the subsidiary performance criteria (behaviors), the evaluator must render a judgment as to how well the teacher is doing with regard to the indicator (skill-set) that comprises those performance criteria. At both stages of the analysis, to arrive consistently at fair conclusions——that is, to obtain similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time——requires (a) that there be uniform standards to guide evaluators in making the requisite judgment calls and (b) that the same standards always be applied, to all teachers in all evaluations. Thus, it is important to know what standards, if any, the CTAS prescribes. To begin, some negative findings are in order. First, the indicators are not standards upon which to make a judgment. They are, rather, the qualities to be judged, using appropriate standards of decision. Second, the performance criteria are likewise not standards. They define or prescribe the relevant facts to which, jointly and severally, standards should be applied, so as to make a judgment regarding one indicator or another.1 To illustrate, the fact that a teacher is observed "reinforc[ing] appropriate social behavior" tells us nothing about how well he does this, much less about how well he has mastered Management of Student Conduct, which indicator comprises the referenced performance criterion. Rather, to make a qualitative judgment regarding the teacher's performance of this practice requires some test, some basis, for distinguishing between good and bad performances. Similarly, the ultimate fact that the teacher acceptably "reinforces appropriate social behavior" tells us relatively little, presumably, about whether the teacher's mastery of the indicator Management of Student Conduct is acceptable or not, for there are eleven other performance criteria to be considered also in respect of this particular indicator. To make a qualitative judgment regarding whether the teacher has demonstrated an acceptable command of the skill-set known as Management of Student Conduct requires some sort of standard, some yardstick for measuring the relative importance of the teacher's demonstrated expertise (or lack thereof)——as determined by the evaluator——in the execution of the various performance criteria. The only "standards" that the evidence in this case persuasively establishes are the terms "acceptable" and "concern." Superficially, these terms seem to possess some degree of objective content. On reflection, however, it should be seen that they do not, a point which will be examined in greater detail below. The undersigned, moreover, has searched the CTAS and the record in vain for an adequate definition of these terms. As far as the proof in this case goes, these terms are criteria without content, and as such can be used as cover for almost any decision an evaluator might want to make. C. It is desirable at this point to elaborate on why the terms "concern" and "acceptable," by themselves, are not standards that evaluators (or administrative law judges or courts) can consistently and fairly apply to teachers across- the-board. As a starting point, envisage a spectrum comprising every conceivable level or degree of teacher talent, ranging from, in the abstract, "worst imaginable" (or "perfectly awful") to "best imaginable" (or "perfectly excellent"). It makes no difference, for present purposes, how exactly "worst" and "best" might be defined. Rather, it is sufficient to say of the "worst" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be worse." Conversely, it need only be said of the "best" teacher, in regard to any imaginable attribute, that "none could be better." As should be obvious, these "worst" and "best" teachers are constructs that serve to define the terminal points at either end of the "talent-level spectrum" we are calling to mind. This talent-level spectrum can be depicted with a simple drawing, as follows: Worst ? ? Best It can now be observed that all teachers, everywhere, must fall somewhere on this talent-level spectrum, between the two poles as we have defined them. Of course, the precise point at which any given teacher should be placed on the spectrum, at any given time,2 is a matter about which reasonable people, in every instance, could disagree. But that is presently of no consequence. Turning next to the facts of this case, the question is posed: Where, on this spectrum of talent, should the mark separating "concern" from "acceptable" be placed? Given their ordinary meanings, the words themselves provide no guidance in this regard. Either of the following, for example, is consistent with the plain meaning of "concern" and "acceptable": Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable Worst ? ? ? Best Concern Acceptable It does not matter how the mark-point in either example might be defined. What matters is the relationship between the mark and the respective poles. As the mark moves closer to the "worst" terminal, the "concern" band becomes narrower, leaving more teachers on the "acceptable" side. Conversely, moving the mark towards the "best" terminal narrows the "acceptable" band, consigning more teachers to the "concern" category. In the instant case, there is no persuasive evidence on which the undersigned can base a finding as to where the mark should be placed. As a result, the undersigned cannot make de novo findings regarding whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged. To do that, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Young. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence in this case as to where the several evaluators placed the mark when they assessed Young's performance.3 The undersigned therefore cannot find that the evaluators all used the same standards——cannot even infer that they did. Consequently, assuming it were proper to do so, the undersigned could not review whether the evaluators acted fairly and appropriately vis-à-vis Young or whether they reached a "correct" (i.e. legally sustainable) judgment regarding his teaching performance.4 Student Performance The 1999 CTAS that was used in evaluating Young had been developed in 1998 and approved by then-Commissioner Tom Gallagher in January 1999. By letter dated January 25, 1999, Commissioner Gallagher informed the District that its CTAS had received "Full Approval." The Commissioner further instructed the District: [I]t will not be necessary for you to resubmit the [CTAS] unless there are statutory changes which affect the requirements for district instructional performance appraisal systems or unless you substantively revise your system for other reasons. In the very next legislative session following this letter, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing the procedures and criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel, which at the time was Section 231.29, Florida Statutes (1999).5 See Ch. 99-398, § 57, Laws of Florida. These statutory changes, which will be examined more closely in the Conclusions of Law below, took effect on June 21, 1999. Id. at § 78. The thrust of the relevant amendment was to require that, in evaluating teacher performance, primary emphasis be placed on student performance, as measured by "state assessments" and "local assessments." These latter two terms were defined, at the time, in Section 229.57, Florida Statutes (2000). Section 229.57 was subsequently transferred to Section 1008.22, Florida Statutes (2003). The District never amended the CTAS to reflect the statutory changes. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CTAS puts little or no particular emphasis on student performance6 and makes no specific references (that the undersigned can locate) to state and local assessments within the statute's contemplation.7 Consequently, as was mentioned several times above, none of the assessment procedures used during Young's protracted evaluation was primarily based on student performance as measured by state and/or local assessments administered annually as specified in Section 1008.22, Florida Statues (2003). Equally if not more important, however, is the lack of persuasive (indeed any) evidence in the record regarding the performance of Young's students as measured by state and/or local assessments. Because of this, it is impossible for the undersigned to make de novo findings based primarily on student performance as to either (a) whether Young's execution of the performance criteria was "acceptable" or not, or (b) whether, ultimately, his command of the indicators in dispute was of "concern," as the Board has alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Young of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Young be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Young back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 17th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to dismiss a teacher for just cause based principally upon the allegation that he failed to prevent or stop two students from engaging in oral sex in his classroom.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Ismael Delgado ("Delgado") had been employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 12 years. At all times relevant to this case, Williams was assigned to Booker T. Washington Senior High School, where he taught students with disabilities. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on December 6, 2004. The School Board alleges that on that date, during Delgado's fourth-period class, a female student named R. B. fellated a male student named D. B., while Delgado busied himself on the computer, paying no attention to the brazen carnality on display in his presence. The School Board charges that at about 11:15 a.m., a young man named K. M.——who was not a student of Delgado's——chanced to enter Delgado's locked classroom (somehow without attracting Delgado's attention) to check up on R. B. at precisely the moment she happened to be orally stimulating D. B.'s penis. K. M. was purportedly shocked to see this behavior——too shocked, evidently, to mention anything about it to Delgado, who allegedly remained glued to his computer, oblivious. K. M. later reported the alleged incident to another teacher, investigations ensued, and Delgado ended up being accused effectively of causing the students' sexual misconduct, for which the School Board now wants to fire him. Delgado consistently has maintained——and testified at hearing——that nothing extraordinary occurred in his classroom on December 6, 2004. He claims that he neither saw nor heard R. B. and D. B. engage in any sexual activity; indeed, Delgado insists that such behavior could not possibly have taken place in his presence. The undersigned fact-finder believes Delgado's testimony in this regard, which is more credible and persuasive than the evidence to the contrary, and finds, on the record as a whole, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's presence, as charged. Because Delgado witnessed nothing of the sort alleged, it is difficult to make affirmative findings concerning what, if anything unusual, occurred in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004. Compounding this difficulty, the students who testified were poor witnesses. The School Board called four purported eyewitnesses to the alleged sexual act: R. B. and D. B., the alleged participants; K. M., the student who serendipitously caught the two flagrante delicto; and A. S., another student in Delgado's class. Each one individually came across as an unreliable witness. None seemed to possess (or was able to articulate) a clear and precise memory of the remarkable alleged events, yet each recounted details that struck the undersigned as being implausible at best. Moreover, taken together, their stories are inconsistent and, in material respects, irreconcilable. In support of these general observations, the undersigned will add the following particular findings, to underscore the care with which the evidence has been weighed. As mentioned, the students who testified gave conflicting accounts about what occurred. The points in conflict are not mere minor details, as the School Board argues, but rather involve material facts, such as when the alleged sexual act took place and what Delgado was doing at that time. The details are critical because it is not enough for the School Board to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex on December 6, 2004. In addition, the School Board alleged and must prove that the sex act took place in Delgado's classroom, while he was present; that Delgado knew or should have known what was going on; and that Delgado failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop the students from having oral sex. The following table presents a summary of the eyewitness testimony regarding six basic questions raised at hearing: R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. When did act occur? In the morning, right before, and continuing after, the bell rang. In the middle of class. It was at the end of class, when the bell rings. Class was over. Before lunch; the bell rang at 11:50 a.m., so between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., but witness is unsure. Before the bell rang. Between 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. Before 12:15 p.m. K. M. came after the class was over. Where did At R. B.'s desk, in the At the front of At the At a desk. act occur? front of the class. the room. teacher's desk in the back. (A. S. had to turn around to see.) Where was Delgado? Before the bell rang, at his desk, in the back of the room. After the bell, he was in hallway. At the board, on one side of the classroom, facing away from the students. At the board. Behind the computer. What was Delgado doing? Before the bell, looking at "perfume" on the computer; he didn't see the act. After the bell, Delgado was in the hallway, watching students. Writing on the board with a marker; he didn't know that students were having sex. Not looking at the computer. Writing a science problem (or something) on the board. He didn't see what was happening. Busy looking at the computer. He didn't see any sexual activities. R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. What did other students do? No one said anything. Students were standing up to shield R. B. and D. B., so Delgado couldn't see the act. Students were not standing up to block Delgado's view. They were playing cards or something. Were other Yes, K. W. & S. J. Yes. T. H. did Doesn't Didn't see that. students Their pants were down something remember; having sex at their ankles. They (unclear). didn't see too? stood by the wall, Also, K. W. that. having regular sex. "jacked" S. J. Students told hem to while they were stop. Delgado couldn’t sitting down at see the couple, but one of the heard the students and teacher's desks. told S. to get off K. No one said They ignored Delgado and continued. anything. Although many discrepancies are obvious, focus on the question of Delgado's whereabouts. Two students placed Delgado behind his computer at the relevant moment. Two others recalled that he was writing on the board. The School Board insists that Delgado was engrossed in his computer; it became invested in this theory during the investigative phase when an examination of the cookies on the hard drive of Delgado's classroom computer turned up electronic evidence that the Yahoo website might have been opened at 11:37 a.m.2 If Delgado were at the computer, however, then both D. B. and A. S. gave unreliable testimony on this significant point.3 Conversely, if D. B. and A. S. were believed, then the reliability of the accounts of R. B. and K. M. would be brought into question. The inconsistencies ultimately undermine the credibility of each of the student witnesses. Apart from the testimonial inconsistencies, none of the students, considered individually, impressed the undersigned as being a trustworthy witness. R. B.'s testimony was vague and childlike, offering little on which the fact-finder could get any traction. Her story, in a nutshell, is that D. B. and some other students goaded her into performing oral sex on D. B., to which she reluctantly consented in the vain hope that compliance would put an end to persistent prodding. R. B. also testified that while she was sucking on D. B.'s penis, two other students (S. J. and K. W., a male and female) were standing by the wall, their pants down at their ankles, having regular sex. This latter is beyond belief and suggests to the undersigned that R. B. has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from fact. That being the case, the undersigned considers her testimony unreliable and has discounted it accordingly. D. B.'s version of the alleged event differs from R. B.'s in one immediately apparent respect: as D. B. tells it, he was practically the victim, R. B. the aggressor who pulled down his pants and commenced sucking on his penis against his wishes. This is unlikely——almost absurd, the undersigned thinks——but D. B.'s testimony in this regard is notable insofar as it exposes a desire (also evident, incidentally, in R. B.'s testimony) to shift the blame——for whatever happened——to someone else. Like R. B., D. B. testified that other students also engaged in sexual activity that morning in Delgado's classroom. In particular, D. B. asserted that K. W. had "jacked" S. J. (i.e. masturbated his penis) while the couple had been sitting down at one of the teacher's desks. The undersigned believes that D. B.'s testimony about K. W. and S. J. is most likely a fabrication.4 Having given testimony that is probably untrue, D. B.'s credibility is suspect and his testimony as a whole must be discounted. A. S. testified that on the morning in question, he turned around and saw R. B. and D. B. at the teacher's desk in the back of room, R. B.'s mouth on D. B.'s penis. Apparently witnessing two classmates openly engaging in a sexual act was not a remarkable event for A. S., for he claims to have looked away and said nothing to the teacher (who was, according to A. S., writing a problem on the board at the time). The undersigned considers this to be implausible. He can scarcely believe that a student in A. S.'s supposed position would react in the blasé manner that A. S. described. The testimony as a whole is not credible. K. M.'s testimony is full of improbabilities. To begin, the undersigned is skeptical that K. M. just happened to be running an errand for his teacher in the middle of fourth period, allowing him to detour to Delgado's classroom to check up on R. B.——whom, he said, he treated "like a sister"——at the very moment she was performing fellatio on D. B. This is too contrived to be believable. Second, the undersigned does not believe that K. M. could have entered Delgado's classroom—— which, it is undisputed, was locked while class was in session—— without Delgado knowing about it, which is what K. M. claims occurred. Third, the undersigned rejects as incredible K. M.'s testimony that he stood watching R. B. suck on D. B.'s penis for a considerable period of time (several minutes), unobserved by Delgado, without saying anything to the teacher. Fourth, the undersigned disbelieves K. M.'s testimony that he slipped out of the secure classroom unnoticed by Delgado. Finally, K. M. testified at hearing with some certainty that he had reported the incident the next day, after carefully considering whether to do so. Yet, the contemporaneous written record reflects that he reported the matter within hours after its alleged occurrence. Standing alone, this latter would be a relatively minor discrepancy. But viewed in the light of other facially improbable details, this discrepancy is more troubling. All things considered, the undersigned harbors genuine doubt regarding K. M.'s reliability as a witness. The School Board offered the unsworn written statements of eight students, including the four who testified at hearing. These are hearsay and hence can be used, if at all, only to supplement or explain other admissible evidence.5 To give a flavor of the nature and quality of the evidence presented in support of the charges against Delgado, the undersigned will reproduce the statements of the non-testifying students below.6 S. J.7 gave a statement dated December 8, 2004, wherein he recounted:8 it happen when [R. B.] was siting between [D. B.] legs and when I went to get my paper from the printer and I turn around I seen [R. B.] sucking [D. B.] penis I was not the only one seen them [K. M.] seen them also this happen 2 minutes before the bell rang that how the other person which is [K. M.] seen them when he walk into the room and seen them thats how everything started. I was not involved with them. J. signed another statement, dated December 14, 2004, in which he wrote: When the problem happen the teacher was right in front of them but he told her to stop but she wouldnt. He told her plenty of times to go down stairs to see Ms. Thomas but she wouldnt. but when they were doing it in the corner in he see them crowed around he gets up to see what's going on thats the only time he gets up to see. the problem doesn't occur now scense she not in the class anymore. K. W.'s9 December 7, 2004, statement provides as follows: when she came in she started to play with [nickname deleted] and he said to leave him and still cap playing with and he got up side on the other side of the classroom and teacher her to stop she cap on playing with him and I when to sleep after that I does not know that they had sex or not. T. H. gave two written statements. The first, dated December 7, 2004, states: I was seating down on the char in I sha [D. B.] in [R. B.] [R. B.] was sukin [D. B.] penis two times. H.'s second statement is dated December 10, 2004. Therein he wrote: Mr. Dilgado trys to stop hus from having six bet we keep on going in he call ower house bet we cap on going. N. H. provided two statements, neither of which is dated. In one he wrote: [D. B.] in [R. B.] was having sex in the classroom. I was go to the computer lab. In the other, N. H. added: I feel I Mr. Delgado did not see [R. B.] in [D. B.] have sex in the class. These written statements do not explain or supplement the admissible evidence; to the contrary, if accepted they would create additional inconsistencies. Thus, the undersigned has not based any findings of fact on their contents. The undersigned has taken note, however, that out of 15-17 students in Delgado's fourth-period class, fewer than half (seven, to be exact) testified at hearing and/or signed a written statement about the alleged incident that was produced at hearing. This causes the undersigned to wonder what, if anything, the other 8- 10 students in the class witnessed on December 6, 2004. Given the paucity of persuasive evidence, the undersigned is better able to find what was not proved to have happened, than to find what likely happened in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004, if anything out of the ordinary. To repeat the key finding above, the School Board failed to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's classroom while he was present. While these students probably did not engage in oral sex, the undersigned believes that there is a slightly better than even chance, and thus he finds, that D. B. briefly exposed his penis in Delgado's classroom after the bell had rung and class had been dismissed, when Delgado was outside of the room monitoring the hallway, which is what he was supposed to be doing at the time.10 The undersigned thinks, based on the evidence presented, that it is reasonably possible (the probability being between, roughly, 25 percent and 35 percent) that R. B. might have placed her mouth on D. B.'s penis, but he cannot make this finding because he is not persuaded that this likely occurred. What is likely, and what the undersigned finds, is that D. B.'s exhibition was a type of taunting, teasing, or sexually harassing behavior directed at R. B. It is found that K. M. likely did enter Delgado's classroom, not during the class period as K. M. claimed, but after fourth period had ended, when Delgado was properly in the hallway and the door to his room was unlocked. It is found that, more likely than not, K. M. then learned about D. B.'s harassment of R. B. It is possible that the incident was already being exaggerated in discussions about what had happened. At any rate, by the time K. M. reported the incident, the facts had become distorted. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado saw or knew about, or reasonably should have seen or known about, D. B.'s misbehavior, which occurred while Delgado was properly monitoring the hallway between classes. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado reasonably should have foreseen D. B.'s misconduct or that he reasonably could have stopped or prevented it.11 There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado was in any way the cause of, or responsible for, D. B.'s bad behavior. In sum, the undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact that, to the extent anything unusual occurred on December 6, 2004, in Delgado's classroom, it was student misbehavior that took place outside the teacher's presence and beyond the reach of his senses. Delgado neither knew nor should have known that anything untoward was occurring. The student or students who engaged in the misbehavior should have been punished, not the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Delgado of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Delgado be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Delgado back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue Whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida (School Board) has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based on the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated May 13, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. At all times material hereto, the School Board employed Respondent as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was assigned to Ashe Middle School where she taught reading and language arts. Respondent holds a Florida educational certificate that has both reading and gifted endorsements. During the time Respondent taught at Ashe Middle School, the school was considered a low performing school. There was a high level of student turnover and a relatively high number of foreign students who did not speak English. Respondent had an advanced reading class that read on grade level. Most of her other students read below grade level.1 Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Broward Teachers Union and applicable law, which will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, School Board has adopted a system to assess teachers known as Instructional Personnel Assessment System (IPAS). Subsection (F)(1)b of Article 18 of the CBA contains the following guiding principle: b. The School Board and BTU [Broward Teachers Union] acknowledge that the assessment process should recognize the professional nature of teaching and supervision. Educational research has not identified a single uni-dimensional construct called "effective teaching." Teachers must pursue a variety of models of effective teaching. It is recognized, moreover, that the educational environment is complex and variable and great weight should be placed on teacher judgment to guide the activities of student learning. Subsection F(2)(e) of Article 18 of the CBA requires that the principal, director, or his/her designee evaluate each employee at least once a year utilizing IPAS. Rating criteria are defined on the IPAS form in the following categories: Instructional Planning Lesson Management Lesson Presentation Student Performance Evaluation Communication Classroom Management Behavior Management Records Management Subject Matter Knowledge Other Professional Competencies The evaluator rates the employee as to each criterion and for overall performance. The rating can be "satisfactory", "needs improvement", or "unsatisfactory." Subsection F of Article 18 of the CBA describes IPAS. Pursuant to the CBA, the assessment system requires a teacher, whose performance has been deemed deficient in one or more areas by an appropriate school administrator, to be placed on a Performance Development Plan (PDP). A school administrator develops the plan and monitors the employee's progress in completing the plan. Subsection F(2)(m)2 of Article 18 of the CBA provides as follows as to the use and implementation of a PDP: Use and implementation of this plan requires identification of deficiencies, definition of strategies for improvement, definition of an assistance timeline, definition of expected outcomes, definition of possible consequences for failure to remediate, completion of assistance activities, and documentation. Subsection (F)(2)f of Article 18 of the CBA provides as follows: The following five (5) techniques are used to gather data on employee performance. Assessors use multiple techniques to understand actual performance and develop performance ratings. Informal classroom observations: Informal observations are made periodically by the principal or designee. A follow-up conference is not required subsequent to an informal classroom observation if performance is deemed satisfactory. Formal classroom observations: Formal observations are primarily initiated by the principal or designee. Employees may, however, request a formal observation. These are not less than 30 minutes in duration and are conducted by the principal, director or his/her designee. The 30 minute time period may be shortened by mutual agreement between the principal and the affected employee. All observations of employees for the purpose of assessment shall be conducted with the full knowledge of the employee. A conference is conducted after each formal observation. The FPMS [Florida Performance Measurement System] or other educationally sound observation instruments which may be used for formal observation.[sic] Observations in non-classroom situations: Principals use opportunities outside the classroom to observe the performance of employees. A follow-up conference is not required subsequent to this type of observation if performance is deemed satisfactory. Review of records and data: Principals review a variety of work samples prepared by the employee. These may include lesson plans, reports, grade card comments, discipline referral documents, etc. In addition, specific records or plans may be requested for review. A follow-up conference is not required if performance is deemed satisfactory. Review of performance portfolio: The principal or designee and the employee may mutually decide that a performance portfolio is needed to provide additional information for the completion of the assessment ratings. The design of a portfolio is determined by the principal and employee. A follow-up conference is not required if performance is deemed satisfactory. A teacher placed on a PDP is given 90 calendar days, excluding school holidays and vacations, to correct the identified performance deficiencies. If, at the end of the 90- day probation period, the performance of the employee remains at an unsatisfactory level for one or more of the assessment criteria, a rating of U (for unsatisfactory) is given. At that juncture, the administrator can extend the PDP period, or he/she can refer the matter to the Office of Professional Standards for further proceedings. Mr. Luciani was the principal and Mr. Muniz was an assistant principal at Ashe Middle School during the 2006-07 school year. On December 11, 2006, Mr. Muniz wrote a memo to Respondent. The memo is quoted verbatim because it targeted problems that continued throughout Respondent's tenure at Ashe Middle School. The memo is as follows: This correspondence is to document the last few week's [sic] events when it was determined that your job performance has been less than satisfactory in the following areas: Behavior Management-managing student behavior Records Management-management of data Communications Instructional Planning On December 7, while doing a classroom visit that lasted 31 minutes I noticed a lack of classroom management. It took almost seven minutes to get the class under control to start your lesson. While there were only 11 students in your room, yet, only five students were on task. You continued to do your lesson despite the disruptions. I am not sure if you were aware or just ignored the disruptions. In the last few weeks you have banished, kicked out, or attempted to kick out students everyday for almost twelve consecutive days. In the past Mr. Hart, Assistant Principal, and I have mentioned that the students should be accompanied by an escort or if you have a receiving teacher you should wait at the door until the child is situated. In at least five occasions your students have been caught wandering the halls because you have kicked them out. There have been many times while on hall duty that I noticed you kicking students out and the class has not yet started. This is unacceptable. You are responsible for the students in your class. When they are unescorted the possibility of injury exist [sic] due to your negligence. The students have not sat down and you attempt to remove them from class. This is also unacceptable. Prior to our recent data conference it was 12:15 in the afternoon and you requested to find out what data you needed at the conference. I directed you to Ms. J. Shakir[,] reading coach[,] who assisted you in securing minimal data for the conference. Please note that there had been four data presentations regarding preparation for the data conferences conducted by Mr. Fleisher and Ms. Lumpkin form c-net. Ms. Shakir and Ms. Pickney also conducted data disaggregation workshops in the previous weeks. While at the conference itself you appeared to know very little with regard to your student data. You were not familiar with your BMA results or the progress your individual students or classes had made. There was no attempt made at providing categorical breakdowns of students which needed prescriptive strategies to address their needs. The confrontational manner with which you speak to children is a direct factor in the lack of classroom management. Your lack of communication skills has led to referrals on many students which have led to major consequences for students after the referrals led to escalated verbal confrontations. During various grade level meetings, I have requested that all teachers provide me with emergency lesson plans every two weeks. To date I have not received any of these plans. Our expectations for each of the above listed concerns are: First and foremost, resolve the discipline problems in compliance with the policies of the school, rules of the District School Board and [sic] the State Board and Florida Statutes. Next, maintain consistency in all application of policy and practice by: Establishing routines and procedures for the use of materials and the physical movement of students. Formulating appropriate standards for student behavior. Identifying inappropriate behavior and employing appropriate techniques for correction. You must prepare for your students all day every day. Lesson plans must be meaningful and relevant to your content area. Studies show that students who are authentically engaged are less prone to deviant [sic] behavior. You must maintain complete order in your classroom. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in the State of Florida requires that the educator make reasonable efforts to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning, and/or to the students' mental, and/or physical health and/or safety. In the next few weeks you will be provided with assistance from behavior specialists, reading/curriculum coach and c-net personnel to assist you in meeting expectations. In February 2007 Respondent was placed on a PDP. Mr. Muniz monitored Respondent's progress and opined that she had not successfully completed the PDP. Mr. Luciani disagreed and instructed Mr. Muniz to give Respondent a satisfactory evaluation, which he did.2 Mr. Luciani was the principal and Mr. Hart was an assistant principal at Ashe Middle School during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years. Mr. Hart received a written complaint from a student that on October 1, 2008, Respondent told the student that the student's mother was unfit and did not know how to raise the student. In response to that complaint, on October 3, 2008, Mr. Hart issued Respondent a letter addressing the inappropriate manner in which she had addressed students, which included the following: On numerous occasions you have been counseled regarding your inappropriate comments/behavior towards students. This behavior includes embarrassing, disparaging, and/or awkward comments and/or actions. It has recently been brought to my attention that, once again, you have exhibited this behavior. * * * I am directing you to cease and desist all actions/comments of this nature immediately. You are to speak to students in a respectful, professional manner at all times. Mr. Hart, Respondent, and the student's parent met to discuss the alleged statements made by Respondent to the student. During that conference, Respondent became angry and left the meeting. Later, Mr. Hart met with Respondent to give her a copy of his letter dated October 3. Respondent took the letter and walked out of the meeting without signing the acknowledgment that she had received the letter. Respondent slammed the door as she left Mr. Hart's office. Mr. Hart received numerous complaints from parents and, as a result, transferred several students from Respondent's class to another class. On February 5, 2009, Mr. Hart observed Respondent arguing with a student in her classroom. He admonished her in writing to not be confrontational with students. Respondent's conduct on February 5, 2009, was inconsistent with Mr. Hart's admonishment to her on October 3, 2008. In an undated memorandum subsequent to January 20, 2009, Mr. Hart set forth the following issues that continued to be of concern despite his previous discussions with Respondent: Parent phone calls from her classroom Completing assignments Checking emails Inputting grades into Pinnacle (a computer database) Being prepared for instruction On February 18, 2009, Mr. Hart issued a written reprimand to Respondent for her failure to input student grades into Pinnacle. Respondent was placed on a PDP on February 13, 2009. Noted under the categories "Lesson Management" and "Lesson Presentation" were the failures to meet the following criteria: Orients students to classwork, specifies purposes of activities and relationship to the objectives; Prepares the classroom materials and equipment for the presentation of the lesson; Selects and uses appropriate instructional techniques including available materials and technology which support learning of the specific types of knowledge or skills; and Asks questions which are clear and require students to reflect before responding. During the PDP period that began February 13, 2009, Respondent was offered appropriate services designed to remediate her deficient performance areas. On May 28, 2009, Mr. Hart completed an IPAS evaluation that rated Respondent unsatisfactory overall and as to the following five categories: "Lesson Management", "Lesson Presentation", "Student Performance Evaluation", "Classroom Management", and "Behavior Management." Mr. Hart rated Respondent satisfactory as to the remaining five categories. Mr. Hart placed Respondent on a second PDP that extended into the 2009-10 school year. At the end of the 2008-09 school year, Mr. Luciani retired. Before the start of the 2009-10 school year, Ms. Peebles became principal of Ashe Middle School. Respondent failed to enter grades and other data for students during the first marking period of the 2009-10 school year. That failure hindered the assessment of each student's needs and made it more difficult to monitor each student's progress. On November 19, 2009, Ms. Peebles conducted an IPAS evaluation for Respondent as to the PDP Mr. Hart had placed her on at the end of the 2008-09 school year. Ms. Peebles found Respondent to be deficient in the same five categories as Mr. Hart's evaluation, and she rated Respondent's overall performance as unsatisfactory. During the PDP period that began May 28, 2009, Respondent was offered appropriate services designed to remediate her deficient performance areas. After her evaluation of November 19, 2009, Ms. Peebles had the options of referring Respondent to the Office of Professional Standards for further proceedings or placing Respondent on another PDP. Ms. Peebles elected to place Respondent on another PDP (the last PDP) because Ms. Peebles was new to the school and she wanted to give Respondent another chance to prove herself. At the conclusion of the last PDP, Ms. Peebles conducted an IPAS evaluation, which was dated April 19, 2010. Respondent remained unsatisfactory in the same five categories as the previous evaluations by Ms. Peebles and Mr. Hart, and her overall evaluation remained unsatisfactory. Throughout her employment at Ashe Middle School, Respondent exhibited a pattern of being absent on Fridays and Mondays. Respondent failed to correct that deficiency after having been counseled by administrators. During the 2009-10 school year, Respondent repeatedly failed to timely provide or leave appropriate lessons after having been counseled by administrators to do so. Respondent was instructed to give her lesson plans to Ms. Brown, the Reading Coach and Reading Department Chairperson, during that school year. Respondent never provided Ms. Brown a complete set of lesson plans the entire year. During the 2009-10 school year, Respondent repeatedly failed to demonstrate that she could control her classroom. She made multiple calls to security on nearly a daily basis and she continued to kick students out of class, which left them in the hallways, unsupervised. The Benchmark Assessment Test (BAT) is a county created test that is administered twice a year in September and again in November. The test is designed to measure the progress, if any, the student has made between the testing dates. The test is also used as a predictor for the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT). The vast majority of Respondent's student's test scores depict either no growth or a regression in all classes. A Mini-BAT is an assessment tool used to develop and provide effective lesson plans as well as student growth. The teacher is responsible for administering the assessment tool to her students and thereafter inputting the results in the computer database. During the 2009-10 school year, approximately half of Respondent's students either were not tested or had no score inputted after being tested. The DAR Assessment is a two-part standardized test designed to measure a student's ability at word recognition and all reading frequency. The test is administered twice a year, once in September and again in January. Ms. Brown administered the tests at Ashe Middle School during the 2009-10 school year. Ms. Brown scored the tests and gave the score results to Respondent, who was required to input the scores in the computer database. The Florida Department of Education (DOE) requires that 90 percent of the students complete the tests, which gives a 10 percent leeway for students who are absent on test days. Students are placed in reading classes based on their test result. The tests also measure each student's progress, or lack thereof, between the test dates. Forty-five percent of Respondent's students had no scores. Nineteen percent of those with scores had no gain. Mock FCATs are periodically administered to students following Mini-BATs. The Mock FCATs administered to Respondent's students during the 2009-10 school year were created by Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown utilized previous iterations of the FCAT that had been released by DOE in an effort to simulate the actual FCAT process in terms of difficulty and complexity. The tests are graded by computer and the scores are given to the teacher to input into the computer database. The results of the Mock FCATs are used to develop instructional plans for students. Sixty-three of Respondent's 111 students (or 57 percent) had no score inputted in the computer database. Nine students who did receive a score made no progress between the dates of the two tests. School Board entered into a contract with a consulting firm named Evans Newton, Inc. (ENI) to assist schools in need of improvement. In 2009-10 school year, ENI provided an assessment test that teachers were to use to monitor students' progress. Respondent administered the assessment test to her class, gave the results to Ms. Brown to score, and recorded the scores in the computer database after receiving the scored results from Ms. Brown. More than 40 percent of Respondent's students had no score recorded for the assessment test. Ms. Brown testified, credibly, that she returned all scored results to Respondent. The lack of a score for over 40 percent of her class can only be explained by Respondent's failure to do her job. Respondent either did not administer the test to those students, she did not give the test results to Ms. Brown to score, or she did not input the scores in the computer database after receiving the results from Ms. Brown. The FCAT Reading Learning Gain is the document through which DOE reports test score results to school districts. During the 2009-10 school year, DOE required a 60 percent learning gain. Respondent's students did not achieve that goal during that school year. For three of the four years she taught at Ashe Middle School, Respondent's classes failed to achieve their FCAT goals. The administrators at Ashe Middle School followed all applicable procedures in formulating and implementing the PDPs and IPASs at issue in this proceeding. After her IPAS evaluation of April 19, 2010, Ms. Peebles referred Respondent's case to the Office of Professional Standards, which resulted in the termination proceedings at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this May 23, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 23rd day of May, 2011.
