The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Statement of Charges. If so, what action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations entered into by the parties:5 The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in St. Lucie County, Florida, (including, among others, Parkway Elementary School, Woodland Academy, Westwood High School, Centennial High School, and Port St. Lucie High School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Among the School Board's instructional programs is its Hospitalized/Homebound Services Program (Program), which serves "students who are hospitalized [in St. Lucie County] or [otherwise] not able to come to school for at least three weeks." Instructional services are provided to students in the Program in out-of-school settings within the jurisdictional boundaries of St. Lucie County: at the hospital (if the student is hospitalized6) or at the student's home (if the student is homebound). These services are furnished through certified teachers who go to where the students are confined to provide them with instruction. "[M]ost [but not all] of the teachers . . . providing services in [the Program] are teachers who teach during the course of the [regular school] day . . . at [the School Board's] schools." In addition to receiving their regular salaries, these teachers are compensated at an hourly rate of $17.00 per hour for the time that they spend with the hospitalized or homebound students to whom they are assigned. They are also paid at that same rate ($17.00 per hour) for the time that they spend engaging in hospitalized/homebound "pre-planning" (up to a maximum of one hour per student assignment) and hospitalized/homebound "post-planning" (up to a maximum of one hour per student assignment). During "pre-planning," the hospitalized/homebound teacher (H/H teacher) engages in the preparations necessary for providing instructional services to the hospitalized or homebound student. These preparations include meeting with the guidance counselor and teachers at the student's home school to determine what instruction the student will be receiving and to ascertain the role, if any, the home school will play in the instructional process. "[O]btaining [needed] books and materials and creating [any necessary] lesson plans" are among the other things that an H/H teacher is expected to take care of during his or her "pre-planning" time. "Post-planning" time is for the H/H teacher to complete the "dismissal process," which involves turning in paperwork and "meet[ing] with the secretary in the [P]rogram." In addition to the compensation they receive for the actual contact they have with their assigned students and for their "pre-planning" and "post-planning" time, H/H teachers also get paid ($8.50, or one half of their hourly rate) "for their inconvenience" each time they make a scheduled visit to a student's home to provide instruction and no one is there (which happens infrequently). H/H teachers are to "reinitiate services" following such a student "no show" only "after contact ha[s] been made with the home to be certain that the student w[ill] be present." To get paid, H/H teachers must submit completed Hospitalized/Homebound Service Logs (H/H Service Logs) for each assigned student, documenting the dates and times they spent with the student, as well as their "pre-planning" and "post- planning" time and any student "no shows." On each occasion that they visit with a student, H/H teachers must enter on the H/H Service Log for that student the date and the starting and ending times of the visit7 and obtain (on the "Parent Signature" line next to these entries) the signature of the student's parent or other responsible adult present (as verification that the visit was made as indicated by the teacher). Because "pre-planning," "post-planning," and student "no shows" do not involve actual student contact, there is no requirement that (nor reason for) the H/H teacher to obtain the signature of the student's parent or the parent's surrogate to verify that the teacher's entries on the H/H Service Log of "pre-planning" and "post-planning" time and student "no shows" are accurate. H/H teachers are not compensated for the time that they spend traveling in connection with the discharge of their duties, but they are reimbursed for such travel, on a per trip basis, for their mileage in excess of ten miles. To receive such reimbursement, they must submit a completed Monthly Travel and Request for Reimbursement Form reflecting the dates of travel and, for each trip, "from where to where" they traveled, the trip's purpose, and the total number of miles traveled. The foregoing Program policies are of a long-standing nature and were in effect at all times material to the instant case. H/H teachers report to a Program Specialist, who oversees "the day-to-day operations of the Program." Billy Tomlinson was the Program Specialist from 1989 to 1994. Mr. Tomlinson's successor was Bennet Buckles, Jr., who remained in the position until the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, when Brenda Washington became the Program Specialist. Ms. Washington was the Program Specialist during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. Ms. Washington was replaced by Talecia Jones. Karen Clover is the current Program Specialist. Immediately above the Program Specialist in the chain of command is the School Board's Director of Exceptional Student Education,8 whose immediate supervisor is the School Board's Executive Director of Student Services. The Director of Exceptional Student Education and the Executive Director of Student Services are administrators who have the authority to establish and modify Program policies. Sandra Akre is now, and has been since approximately 1998, the School Board's Director of Exceptional Student Education. Barbara Slaga is now, and has been since 1992, the School Board's Executive Director of Student Services. It is expected that any questions that an H/H teacher has regarding the Program will first be directed to the Program Specialist; however, H/H teachers are free to consult with Ms. Akre and Ms. Slaga, particularly if the teachers are told something by the Program Specialist that "seem[s] to be in conflict with past practice or what they have done before."9 The Program Specialist is a not an administrator, but rather is a "teacher on special assignment" responsible for seeing to it that Program policies are followed. The Program Specialist lacks the authority to permit an H/H teacher to receive compensation for more than one hour of "pre-planning" time per student (the maximum allowed under Program policy), even where "extraordinary circumstances" exist. Such a deviation from Program policy must be approved by an administrator. Among the duties of the Program Specialist is to train H/H teachers. A prerequisite to becoming and remaining an H/H teacher is participating in an annual training session conducted by the Program Specialist. This required training is "typically . . . provided at the beginning of the [school] year" and is "extensive." Each training session lasts "two to two-an-a-half hours [and] all the [Program] procedures and the rules" are covered, including the long-standing Program policies regarding H/H teacher compensation and reimbursement discussed above.10 The Program Specialist uses a training manual to facilitate training. The contents of the manual for H/H teachers are reviewed during training. A copy of the manual is given to each H/H teacher to keep and "use . . . as a reference." Training at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year was jointly conducted by Ms. Washington, the new Program Specialist, and Mr. Buckles, her predecessor. The following school year, Ms. Washington conducted the training herself, using a new training manual that she had put together (2000-01 Manual or Manual). The 2000-01 Manual contained "more detail" on some subjects than the version it replaced. The following "Hospitalized/Homebound Procedures" were set forth in the 2000-01 Manual: Upon admission to the Hospitalized/Homebound Program, the referral form is generated from the Doctor and submitted to the Homebound office where it will be processed. A staffing will be held to determine eligibility for the program. As prescribed by rule 6A-6.03020(3) the IEP will be developed on an informal basis unless they are enrolled in ESE. If enrolled in ESE, then a school based staffing MUST take place. At this point a teacher will be assigned to provide the educational program. The assignment of the teacher will be determined by the ESE office. The number of hours for the student will be determined on an individual basis. The teacher is responsible for developing the Individual Education Plan as outlined in the flow chart. Our responsibility is for the delivery of subjects that are required in the educational program NOT necessarily the elective subjects. Elective instruction should be correlated between the school and homebound teacher. Elective subjects that are required for graduation will be given consideration.* (*This does not mean that we will not provide instruction in elective subjects.) The guidance counselor must be an active participant in determination of the subjects to be covered. All Hospital[ized]/Homebound teachers must use the Hospital[ized]/Homebound Conference Form. It is the responsibility of all homebound teachers to meet with all of a student's classroom teachers and document how information will be transferred. After the conference a copy must be forwarded to the principal of the school. NEVER leave the school without obtaining a signature on the form from either the guidance counselor or principal. During the conference stress the fact that grades will improve because of one-on- one instruction. If they do not improve someone is not doing something correct[ly]. . . . 12. Assignments are to be returned on a weekly basis with communication reports going to the school along with a copy of the communication report forwarded to the Hospital[ized]/Homebound office. The "Hospital[ized]/Homebound Staff Responsibilities" section of the 2000-01 Manual provided as follows: Upon admission to the Hospital Homebound Program, each student will be assigned to a teacher. The teacher is responsible for: -Attend inservice and workshops as required. -Attend staffings at ESE office or home school as assigned. -Setting up appointments with guidance counselors, teachers and parents. -Completing necessary paperwork, including writing short-term objectives. Contacting home schools to determine courses/concerns as necessary. Act as liaison between subject area teachers and parents when needed; if a concern arises for a student in a particular class or subject area, the subject area teacher should first contact the parent. If the issue is not resolved, the Homebound teacher should be contacted for input. The specialist should be notified following the resolution by the subject area [teacher] and Homebound teacher. -Preparing and maintaining grade sheets. -Scheduling instructional time periods. -Keeping accurate attendance records. -Delivering and returning materials, textbooks, units, or tests. -Filling out FTE individual student schedules for FTE count. -Maintaining papers for school/parents to be mailed. -Administering state, local, and teacher developed test/assessments. -Completing Hospital[ized]/Homebound grade sheets. Conferring with student, parents, and school guidance counselors on course changes or adaptations. -Providing information to other subject area teachers about a student's medical problem, limitations, and education background. However, if student is in a hospital, all information is confidential. -Maintaining accurate weekly schedules and travel logs. Completing weekly Communications logs between Hospital[ized]/Homebound and regular education teacher. -In order for a teacher to claim pay for 1 (one) hour of pre-planning, it will be necessary to submit to us the Homebound Conference Form which shows actual attendance at school based meeting. -In order for a teacher to obtain pay for 1 (one) hour of post-planning, it will be necessary to sign off on Homebound dismissal with Janet Cooper. At the dismissal time, all paperwork must be submitted and at the close-out staffing it will be disseminated to the appropriate school. You have 24 hours after dismissal to have all paperwork turned in to the ESE Homebound Office. You must call and make an appointment with Janet Cooper. The "Guidelines [for] Hospitalized/Homebound Teachers" section of the 2000-01 Manual provided as follows: Welcome to the Hospitalized/Homebound Program of St. Lucie County. Your interest and willingness to help are appreciated, and we feel sure that you will enjoy the work you do with our students. You probably have many questions concerning this program, and we hope that these few guidelines will be of some help. Call the school counselor to schedule a meeting. Call the student's home and inform the parent/guardian of the meeting with the guidance counselor. It is best if the parent can meet with both of you. If they cannot, however, you can make an appointment with the parent to review the plan. Remind the parent or guardian that a responsible adult must be present at all times while you are in the home. This may be a relative or neighbor if the parents are unable to be there. It is recommended that an average of 3-5 hours per week be spent with elementary students, 4-8 hours per week with middle school students and 7-12 hours per week with high school students, but some situations may require more or less time. (Flexibility is the name of the game in this program.) In your initial conversation with the parent, you may find out whether the student has books and/or assignments and what he/she needs from school. Each time you visit the student, ask the adult who is there to sign your contracted teacher log. If the student is in the hospital, ask a nurse to sign it for you. Please follow the payroll schedule to assure proper payment for your services. You will be paid for actual student contact hours. Mileage is included in your stipend for the first ten (10) miles traveled on any visit to the student residence or place of instruction. We will try to assign students within a reasonable distance from your home. Please work with the students on regular school days, not on holidays or weekends. The School Board considers only those school days according to the official school calendar as appropriate teaching days. When you accept a student, you will be given a packet containing all forms and information that you will need. There will always be questions so please feel free to call. Our number at the ESE office is . . . . The 2000-01 Manual also contained the following "Hospitalized/Homebound Program Procedures for Completing Travel Forms": The following procedures have been established for completing travel forms: Contracted teachers are required to submit the travel form that coincides with the time sheet. Accounting has requested this requirement. Stipend teachers' travel can be accumulated and then submitted after the form is completed for the month. In the column "From Where - To Where" write from where you are leaving (ex: School Name or your home), then write the student's address (not name), next, where you returned to (ex: School Name or your home). You may write "home" because your address appears at the bottom of the form. As noted on the form "indicate clearly if round trip." You may submit trips to the student's school to pick up homework, meetings, etc. for the student. Indicate the mileage from point of departure to the destination, then point of return. In the column "Purpose" write the reason for the trip, such as tutor homebound student. If other than tutoring, please indicate the reason. When calculating mileage the following steps are necessary: Enter the total miles from your point of departure to the student's home then to your point of return. Write on the form under "Miles" the total miles for this round trip. Then, write the subtraction of 10 miles from the total. This will be the figure allowed for reimbursement. You must write round trip total per trip minus 10 miles for each day. If this is not indicated on your form that you subtracted 10 miles for each trip, then we will subtract 10 from the daily totals to calculate your reimbursement. At the bottom of the form, write the date you completed the form, your social security number, print your name and address, and be sure to sign. This form cannot be submitted without your signature and will be returned to you if omitted. If you have any question, please call Janet for further assistance at . . . . In addition, the 2000-01 Manual included copies of the following forms, among others: the Hospitalized/Homebound Conference Form, the Hospitalized/Homebound Program Record Weekly Communication Record, the H/H Service Log, and the Monthly Travel and Request for Reimbursement Form. On the top of the Hospitalized/Homebound Conference Form in the Manual was the following statement: The Hospital[ized]/Homebound Program is coordinating the education services for the student listed. To maintain parity with the quality education provided by the classroom teacher, the program will require a copy of course syllabi, appropriate textbooks, weekly assignments and evaluations. *If the Hospital[ized]/Homebound teacher is responsible for grading assignment and evaluations an answer key is required. The Guidance Department must determine if the existing course schedule is appropriate for Hospital[ized]/Homebound instruction. Appropriate modifications to course offering or content must be determined prior to plan implementation. The form had spaces for the student's name, address, school, grade, guidance counselor, and H/H teacher, the "date of meeting," the "subjects to be taught" by the H/H teacher, the signatures of the "classroom teachers" who would otherwise be teaching the student those subjects, and the signatures of the guidance counselor and the H/H teacher. There were also spaces to indicate, for each subject, whether assignments and examinations would be "transferred" by "PONY," the student's parent, or the H/H teacher and whether these assignments and examinations would be graded by the classroom teacher or the H/H teacher. The Hospitalized/Homebound Program Weekly Communication Record in the Manual had spaces for the H/H teacher to indicate the student's "academic average for the week by subject." The H/H Service Log in the Manual indicated on its face that it was a "record of hospitalized/homebound teacher services." It had spaces for the H/H teacher to indicate the "[d]ays(s) and time(s) of the week [the] student [in question] was served." In all caps and boldface type on the log was the reminder, "Parent/Guardian signature required daily," and there were spaces on the log for such signatures. The log also contained the following certification to be signed and dated by the H/H teacher: "I hereby certify that the above services were provided by me as indicated." Underneath the signature line for the H/H teacher were signature lines for the Program Specialist and the "administrator [giving] approval." The Monthly Travel and Request for Reimbursement Form in the Manual had four columns with the following headings, reading from left to right: "Date of Travel," "From Where - To Where (Indicate clearly if round trip)," "Purpose," and "Miles." On the bottom left hand corner of the form was the following "Note": Miles to and from school centers must agree with approved school mileage chart. Each date of travel must be reported separately. Respondent was among the H/H teachers who were trained and supervised by Ms. Washington during the 2000-01 school year.11 This was not the first year that she had taught in the Program.12 At all times that she served as an H/H teacher, Respondent was also under contract with the School Board to provide school-based instruction during the regular school day. Although she has been employed by the School Board since approximately 1981, she has not been a teacher for this entire period of time. From the commencement of her employment with the School Board until the 1994-95 school year, she held various noninstructional positions. During the 1994-95 school year, Respondent graduated from Nova Southeastern University with a degree in exceptional education. She obtained, and still holds, Florida certification in the areas of emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed. It has only been since the 1994-95 school year, when she taught a varying exceptionalities class at Parkway Elementary School, that Respondent has worked as a teacher for the School Board. At the beginning of the 2000-01 school year, Respondent taught at Westwood High School. In or around September 20, 2000, she was transferred to Woodland Academy, where she remained for the rest of the school year. Respondent returned to Westwood High School the next school year. S. S. is one of the students served by the Program. She is a sixteen-year-old girl who has Cystic Fibrosis. Because of her illness, S. S. "runs infections quite a bit" and often needs to be hospitalized for ten days to two weeks or more at a time. As a result, "she doesn't get much time home." J. S. is S. S.'s mother. J. S. "work[s] a tremendously demanding job" with long hours that often prevents her from being home before evening. Sometime after the beginning of the 2000-01 school year, in or around late September or early October of 2000, Respondent (who had already undergone the required annual training for H/H teachers) was assigned by Ms. Washington to be S. S.'s H/H teacher. The assignment continued until the end of the school year. During the 2000-01 school year, S. S. was a ninth grade student taking, among other subjects, English, algebra, biology and global studies. Her home school that year was Centennial High School. S. S. was hospitalized at St. Mary's Medical Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, on seven different occasions during the 2000-01 school year. The shortest of these hospital stays was ten days. The longest was 19 days. Before each of these hospitalizations, J. S. gave the School Board notice (by telephoning either Respondent or the School Board's Exceptional Student Education office) that S. S. would be going into the hospital. At no time during the 2000-01 school year did S. S. have access to a functioning computer (either at the hospital or at home) that she used for schoolwork.13 The School Board provided S. S. with a computer that Respondent tried to set up in S. S.'s home, but the computer "never worked." During the period that Respondent was S. S.'s H/H teacher (and S. S. was at home and not hospitalized), Respondent did not visit S. S. every school day; rather, she visited once or twice a week. J. S. was present for only a "few" of these visits. She was under the impression that she did not need to be there when Respondent visited inasmuch as S. S. had "hit high school age." The longest Respondent ever stayed with S. S. during a visit was one and half to two hours. There were only one or two visits of this length. They occurred "at the beginning" when Respondent was attempting to set up the computer in S. S.'s home. The other visits were "short" and, for the most part, involved Respondent "just dropping off work" for S. S. When S. S. completed the work that Respondent had dropped off for her, she gave it to her mother or her sister to give to Respondent. Respondent provided S. S. with no instruction during her visits with S. S. except for "a little bit" of instruction in algebra.14 Respondent submitted completed H/H Service Logs (using the form contained in the Manual) on which she knowingly made false representations, with the intent to defraud the School Board,15 concerning the "services [she] provided" S. S. She did so to obtain compensation to which she knew she was not entitled.16 On many of the occasions that Respondent claimed, on the logs, she had been with S. S. providing "services," she, in fact, had not provided the "services" claimed. Respondent made these false claims knowing that they were not true and anticipating that the School Board would rely upon them in determining the amount of pay she would receive. J. S. was an unwitting participant in Respondent's scheme. J. S. signed H/H Service Logs presented to her by Respondent after being told by Respondent that Respondent "had been coming" to visit S. S. when J. S. was not home and that J. S. needed to sign the logs to indicate that such visits had been made. J. S. took Respondent at her word about these alleged visits and followed Respondent's directions. Some of the H/H Service Logs that Respondent gave J. S. to sign had the dates and times of these alleged unsupervised visits already filled in. Others did not. The evidentiary record contains twelve H/H Service Logs (collectively covering the period from September 25, 2000 to May 25, 2001) that Respondent filled out and turned in during the time that she was S. S.'s H/H teacher. On each, Respondent "certif[ied]" (by her signature) that she had "served" S. S. on the dates and times indicated thereon. There is a signature purporting to be that of J. S. on the "Parent Signature" line to the right of each date of "service[]" entered on each log.17 With one exception (the log covering the period from April 23, 2001, to May 11, 2001), each log also bears what purports to be Ms. Washington's signature on the "Program Specialist" signature line directly underneath Respondent's "certif[ication]." On the first log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from September 25, 2000, to October 13, 2000: Monday, September 25, 2000, for an hour, from 8:30 to 9:3018; Tuesday, September 26, 2000, for two hours, from 7:30 to 9:30; Wednesday, September 27, 2000, for one hour, from 8:30 to 9:30; Thursday, September 28, 2000, for one hour, from 8:30 to 9:30; Friday, September 29, 2000, for three hours, from 6:30 to 9:30; Monday October 2, 2000, for two hours, from 9:00 to 11:00; Tuesday, October 3, 2000, for two hours, from 9:00 to 11:00; Wednesday, October 4, 2000, for two hours, from 9:00 to 11:00; Thursday, October 5, 2000, for three hours, from 8:00 to 11:00; Friday, October 6, 2000, for three hours, from 5:30 to 8:30; Tuesday, October 10, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00; Wednesday, October 11, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00; and Thursday, October 12, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00. It was noted on the log that October 9, 2000, was Yom Kippur and that October 13, 2000, was an "inservice day." On the second log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from October 16, 2000, to November 3, 2000: Monday, October 16, 2000, for one hour, from 6:00 to 7:00; Tuesday, October 17, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Wednesday, October 18, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Thursday, October 19, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Friday, October, 20, 2000, for one hour, from 6:00 to 7:00; Tuesday, October 24, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Wednesday, October 25, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Thursday, October 26, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Friday, October 27, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Monday, October 30, 2000, for one hour, from 6:00 to 7:00; Tuesday, October 31, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Wednesday, November 1, 2000, for two hours from 6:00 to 8:00; Thursday, November 2, 2000, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; and Friday, November 3, 2000, for one hour, from 6:00 to 7:00. On the third log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from November 6, 2000, to November 24, 2000: Monday, November 6, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00; and Tuesday, November 7, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00. It was noted on the log that S. S. was in the hospital on the remaining regular school days during the period. On the fourth log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from November 27, 2000, to December 15, 2000: Wednesday, November 29, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00; Thursday, November 30, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00; Friday, December 1, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00; and Monday, December 4, 2000, for three hours, from 6:00 to 9:00. It was noted on the log that S. S. was in the hospital on the remaining regular school days during the period. On the fifth log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from January 3, 2001, to January 12, 2001: Wednesday, January 3, 2001, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Thursday, January 4, 2001, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Friday, January 5, 2001, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00; Monday, January 8, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 6:00 to 8:30; Tuesday, January 9, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 6:00 to 8:30; Wednesday, January 10, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 6:00 to 8:30; Thursday, January 11, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 6:00 to 8:30; and Friday, January 12, 2001, for two hours, from 6:00 to 8:00. On the sixth log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from January 15, 2001, to February 2, 2001: Tuesday, January 16, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Wednesday, January 17, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Thursday, January 18, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Monday, January 22, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, January 23, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Wednesday, January 24, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Thursday, January 25, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Friday, January 26, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Monday, January 29, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, January 30, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; and Wednesday, January 31, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00. It was noted on the log that S. S. was in the hospital on the remaining regular school days (February 1 and 2, 2001) during the period. On the seventh log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from February 5, 2001, to February 16, 2001: Wednesday, February 7, 2001, for three and half hours, from 3:00 to 6:30; Thursday, February 8, 2001, for three and half hours, from 3:00 to 6:30; Friday, February 9, 2001, for four hours, from 3:00 to 7:00; Monday February 12, 2001, for one hour, from 3:00 to 4:00; Tuesday, February 13, 2001, for three and half hours, from 3:00 to 6:30; Wednesday, February 14, 2001, for three and half hours, from 3:00 to 6:30; Thursday, February 15, 2001, for three and half hours, from 3:00 to 6:30; and February 16, 2001, for a half hour, from 3:00 to 3:30. It was noted on the log that S. S. was in the hospital on the remaining regular school days (February 5 and 6, 2001) during the period. On the eighth log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from February 19, 2001, to March 2, 2001: Monday, February 19, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, February 20, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Wednesday, February 21, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Thursday, February 22, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Friday, February 23, 2001, for one hour, from 3:00 to 4:00; Monday, February 26, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, February 27, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Wednesday, February 28, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Thursday, March 1, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; and Friday, March 2, 2001, for one hour, from 3:00 to 4:00. On the ninth log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from March 5, 2001, to March 16, 2001: Monday, March 5, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Tuesday, March 6, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Wednesday, March 7, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Thursday, March 8, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; and Friday, March 9, 2001, for an hour, from 3:00 to 4:00. It was noted on the log that S. S. was not provided any "services" the week of March 12, 2001, and that she was "hospitalized" for the last three days of that week. On the tenth log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from April 2, 2001, to April 20, 2001: Monday, April 2, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, April 3, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Wednesday, April 4, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Thursday, April 5, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Friday, April 6, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Monday, April 16, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 2:30 to 5:00; Tuesday, April 17, 2001, for two hours, from 2:30 to 4:30; Wednesday, April 18, 2001, for two hours, from 2:30 to 4:30; Thursday, April 19, 2001, for two hours, from 2:30 to 4:30; and Friday, April 20, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 2:30 to 5:00. It was noted on the log that the week of April 9, 2001, was "spring break." On the eleventh log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from April 23, 2001, to May 11, 2001: Monday, April 23, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, April 24, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Wednesday, April 25, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Thursday, April 26, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Friday, April 27, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Monday, April 30, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, May 1, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Monday, May 7, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Tuesday, May 8, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Wednesday, May 9, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; Thursday, May 10, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00; and Friday, May 11, 2001, for two hours, from 3:00 to 5:00. It was noted on the log that S. S. was "hospitalized" on the remaining regular school days (May 2, 3, and 4, 2001) during the period. On the twelfth log she submitted, Respondent "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. on the following dates and times during the period from May 14, 2001, to May 25, 2001: Monday, May 14, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Tuesday, May 15, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Wednesday, May 16, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Thursday, May 17, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Friday, May 18, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Monday, May 21, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Tuesday, May 22, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Wednesday, May 23, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; Thursday, May 24, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30; and Friday, May 25, 2001, for an hour and a half, from 3:00 to 4:30. On an area of the log where there were no printed words or lines was the following notation: "One hour planning." No date or times were given, nor was there any signature next to this notation.19 The evidentiary record also contains four Monthly Travel and Request for Reimbursement Forms (Travel Reimbursement Forms) that Respondent filled out and turned in during the time that she was S. S.'s H/H teacher.20 The first of these Travel Reimbursement Forms covered the period from September 25, 2000, to October 13, 2000, the same period covered by the first service log. On this Travel Reimbursement Form, Respondent claimed that she traveled from her home to S. S.'s home and back (a round trip of 33.5 miles) on each of the days that, according to the first service log, she "served" S. S.21 No other travel was reflected on the form. The second of these Travel Reimbursement Forms covered the period from January 15, 2001, to February 9, 2001. On this Travel Reimbursement Form, Respondent claimed that she traveled from her home to S. S.'s home and back on each of the days that, on the sixth service log, she represented she "served" S. S. She further claimed, on this Travel Reimbursement Form, that she made the same round trip on February 7, 8, and 9, 2001 (days that, on the seventh service log, she represented she "served" S. S). No other travel was reflected on the form. The third of these Travel Reimbursement Forms covered the period from February 19, 2001, to March 2, 2001, the same period covered by the eighth service log. On this Travel Reimbursement Form, Respondent claimed that she traveled from her home to S. S.'s home and back on each of the days that, on the eighth service log, she represented she "served" S. S. No other travel was reflected on the form. The fourth and last of these Travel Reimbursement Forms covered the period from March 5, 2001, to March 16, 2001, the same period covered by the ninth service log. On this Travel Reimbursement Form, Respondent claimed that she traveled from her home to S. S.'s home and back on each of the days that, on the ninth service log, she represented she "served" S. S. No other travel was reflected on the form. The evidentiary record also contains one H/H Service Log on which Ms. Washington "certif[ied]" that she "served" S. S. (as S. S.'s H/H teacher) on September 18, 2000, for four hours, from 5:00 to 9:0022; September 20, 2000, for four hours, from 5:00 to 9:00; September 22, 2000, for four hours, from 5:00 to 9:00; September 24, 2000,23 for four hours, from 5:00 to 9:00; September 25, 2000, for four hours, from 5:00 to 9:00; and September 26, 2000, for four hours, from 5:00 to 9:00.24 There is no "Parent Signature" to the right of either the September 18, 21, 24, or 26, 2000, entry. There is a signature purporting to be that of J. S. on the "Parent Signature" line to the right of each of the other alleged dates of "service[]." There is a notation on the log (together with an arrow) indicating that S. S. was "[r]e-assigned [to] Celestine Baker" on the Thursday of the school week beginning Monday, September 25, 2000 (that is, on September 28, 2000).25 The administrator who signed the log was someone other than Ms. Slaga or Ms. Akre. It was not until after the end of the school year that it "c[a]me to [Ms. Slaga's] attention that Ms. Washington had some service logs[26] related to [S. S.]." Ms. Slaga found it "very unusual to see" an H/H Service Log submitted by a Program Specialist. At the suggestion of Susan Ranew, the School Board's Director of Personnel, Ms. Slaga visited J. S. and showed her the service logs in question. J. S. told Ms. Slaga, after examining the logs, that "no services" were provided on some of the alleged dates of "service[]," including dates on which S. S. "was in the hospital in West Palm Beach." J. S. added that not all of the signatures on the "Parent Signature" lines on the logs were hers. When Ms. Slaga returned from her visit with J. S., she "pulled out all of [S. S.'s] logs," including those submitted by Respondent, and reviewed them. Ms. Slaga noticed that "some of the dates that were on [Respondent's] log were the same dates that Ms. Washington had [claimed] that she [had] provided services to [S. S.]."27 These were dates on which, according to what J. S. "had already shared" with Ms. Slaga, S. S. "was in the hospital in West Palm [Beach]." After obtaining information from St. Mary's Medical Center concerning S. S.'s hospitalizations, Ms. Slaga re- examined the service logs and confirmed "that there were days of service indicated by both Ms. Washington and [Respondent] that [S. S] had been in the hospital." Ms. Slaga "turned the information over to the [School Board's] Personnel [Office]." Russell Anderson, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, after consulting with the School Board's Superintendent of Schools, called in the law firm of Richeson and Associates to engage in "formal fact finding." During the "formal fact finding," Respondent was provided the opportunity to give "a statement of her side of the story." Through her attorney, she declined to give such a statement.28 At some point in time, Respondent telephoned S. S. and told S. S., if S. S. "were contacted by the School [Board] regarding [Respondent's] services," to lie and say that Respondent "came every day."29 Ms. Washington, unlike Respondent, did give a statement, which "was eventually turned into an affidavit." In her affidavit (which was received into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3, over the School Board's objection), after discussing the Program and procedures relating to the completion and approval of H/H Service Logs and Travel Reimbursement Forms, Ms. Washington went on to describe those "activities . . . related to [S. S.'s] involvement in the hospitalized/homebound program" in which she claimed she engaged on the dates of "service[]" indicated on her "service logs for the time periods of 8/22/00-8/30/00; 8/31/00-9/13/00; and 9/18/00-9/27/00." Some of the "activities" she described did not involve "actual student contact," such as "visiting different locations in St. Lucie and Martin Counties . . . in attempts to acquire a needed adapter for [an] Apple laptop computer so that [she] could provide the laptop to S. S." and attending "meetings at Port St. Lucie High School [S. S.'s home school at the time] concerning providing hospitalized/homebound services to [S. S.]." Ms. Washington further stated that, "[o]n 8/30/00, [she] went the [S. S.'s] home and installed a desktop computer and password" and that "[t]his desktop computer had the computer program 'Plato' installed on it so that [S. S.] could utilize computerized instruction." Ms. Washington added that, "since [she] had Plato installed on [her] laptop, [she] was able to monitor [S. S.] while [S. S.] worked on the desktop computer." Ms. Washington went on to claim that she did such "monitor[ing]" on the following dates: August 31, 2000; September 2, 2000; September 6, 2000; September 7, 2000; September 8, 2000; September 11, 2000; September 12, 2000; September 13, 2000; September 18, 2000; September 20, 2000; September 22, 2000; September 24, 2000; September 25, 2000; and September 26, 2000. These representations were false. There was no "computerized instruction." There was no "monitoring." Indeed, there was not even a "desktop computer" set up in S. S.'s home. These were all things that Ms. Washington had made up.30 Having described in the preceding portions of her affidavit the non-"actual student contact" activities in which she claimed to have engaged on the dates of "service[]" reported on the service logs she submitted, Ms. Washington made the following self-serving statements in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the affidavit:31 I wrote the training manual for teachers in relation to the ESE Hospitalized/Homebound Program. Although page 9 of this training manual (#6) states "you will be paid for actual student contact hours" this does not prevent a hospitalized/homebound teacher or program specialist from submitting time on their service log for any activity related to a student in the hospitalized/homebound program. The Training Manual does not address all possible scenarios and is only intended to be a guide for teachers. The reference on page 9 of this training manual, which states "you will be paid for actual student contact hours" refers only to teachers/program specialists being reimbursed for mileage. I believe that it is proper for a teacher or program specialist to record on their service log any time that the teacher or program specialist spends performing any activity related to a student in the hospitalized/homebound program if that activity is performed outside the teacher's or program specialist's normal workday. Page 8 of this training manual provides that in order for teachers and program specialists to claim payment for 1 hour of pre-planning, actual attendance at a school based meeting[] is required. However, I believe that a teacher or program specialist is allowed to perform this pre-planning at [his or her] home, and that any time that the teacher or program specialist spends performing any activity at a school (outside [his or her] normal work hours) in relation to a student in the hospitalized/homebound program may be recorded on the service log. I performed the pre-planning for [S. S.] while I was in my office, during normal working hours. By mid-October of 2001, Ms. Washington had been suspended from her Program Specialist position and Ms. Jones had been assigned to take her place. While Ms. Jones was "in training," Mr. Tomlinson was asked to review and sign the completed H/H Service Logs submitted by the H/H teachers. Among the completed service logs Mr. Tomlinson reviewed was one submitted by Respondent, on which Respondent "certif[ied]" (by her signature) that she "served" J. A., a hospitalized/homebound student to whom she had been assigned, on the following dates and times during the period from October 1, 2001, to October 16, 2001: Monday, October 1, 2001, for two hours, from 3:15 to 5:15; Tuesday, October 2, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Wednesday, October 3, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Thursday, October 4, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Friday, October 5, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Monday, October 8, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Tuesday, October 9, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Wednesday, October 10, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Thursday, October 11, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45; Friday, October 12, 2001, for two hours, from 3:15 to 5:15; Monday, October 15, 2001, for two hours, from 3:15 to 5:15; and Tuesday, October 16, 2001, for two and a half hours, from 3:15 to 5:45. When Mr. Tomlinson received the log, there was a signature purporting to be that of J. A.'s mother on the "Parent Signature" line to the right of each date of "service[]" entered on the log.32 These signatures were forgeries (as evidenced by the misspelling, in each case, of J. A.'s mother's last name33). They had been placed on the log by Respondent, who did so because she knew that there needed to be a signature on the "Parent Signature" line next to each date of "service[]" in order for her to get paid for the hours of "service[]" she reported having provided on that date.34 Respondent was subsequently, like Ms. Washington, suspended without pay and recommended for termination. No showing has been made that, in being suspended without pay and recommended for termination, Respondent was treated differently and less favorably than any similarly situated teacher suspected by the School Board of having deceptively falsified documents for his or her own personal gain;35 nor has it been shown that she has been targeted for prosecution for any invidious or unlawful reason, such as her race.36
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for having engaged in the deceptive and fraudulent conduct described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lawrence J. Ferrara, was an instructional employee of petitioner, School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board or petitioner). When the relevant events herein occurred, Ferrara was a classroom teacher under a continuing contract assigned to John I. Leonard High School (JIL) in Lake Worth, Florida. He has been employed as a classroom teacher with petitioner since August 16, 1965 and received his continuing contract of employment in June, 1969. He holds teaching certificate number 150262 issued by the State Department of Education and is certified in the areas of American Government and social studies for grade levels 7 through 12. Respondent received a bachelor of education degree from the University of Miami. His first assignment with petitioner was in school year 1965-66 at Lantana Junior High School. He remained there through school year 1967-68. At the end of that year, Ferrara was placed on a fourth year annual probationary contract because he had insufficient control of his classes. He transferred to John F. Kennedy High School for school year 1968-69, and received a continuing contract of employment at the end of that school year. Respondent then transferred to Boynton Beach Junior High School for the 1969-70 school year. Ferrara desired to teach at the high school level because he preferred to teach students having greater maturity and interest in learning. He secured an assignment to JIL in September, 1970, where he remained until his suspension in 1986. Ferrara was initially assigned to the social studies department teaching American History to the eleventh grade. He remained in that position until the fall of 1981. During this period of time, Ferrara's evaluations showed steady improvement in his performance, and Ferrara characterized the 1980-81 school year as the happiest and most enjoyable year in his teaching career. In fact, he referred only two students to the dean for disciplinary reasons during the entire year, and both were referred during the final week of school. Prior to the 1981-82 school year, Ferrara had a reputation as a good teacher, and his relationship with other faculty members was favorable. JIL sits on a forty acre campus in Lake Worth, Florida. During the relevant years the school had a student enrollment ranging in size from 2,200 to 2,850 students. Most recently its faculty numbered approximately 145. The principal is the chief administrator at JIL. In dealing with employees, the principal follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA), School Board policy, administrator's directives and the JIL Teacher and Student Handbooks. There are several assistant principals, including deans, who have been given authority to counsel with and reprimand employees. Among other things they are responsible for discipline of students. There are also guidance counselors who may counsel with other staff members and students as the need arises. The principal designates department chairmen who have authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers, and to recommend course assignments within the department. In the case at bar, Ferrara was assigned to the social studies department, which had approximately sixteen teachers. Its chairman was responsible for reviewing lesson plans of all teachers to insure that curriculum objectives were being met. This action is mandated by the School Board. At JIL lesson plans were required to be prepared one week in advance. In addition, faculty were required to prepare emergency lesson plans to be used by substitute teachers if the regular teacher was absent. Finally, the department head issued textbooks to each teacher who was obligated to turn in the books (or monies from the student) at the end of the semester or school year. According to the CTA-School Board contract introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9, and which is applicable to Ferrara's employment, Subsection A1. of Article II provides that "teachers are expected to serve on school committees, self-evaluation and accreditation committees, attend meetings and workshops . . . such service (to be) on a voluntary basis . . " Subsection A2. provides that "employees shall assume reasonable responsibility for the safe return of all school property." Subsection F4. of the same Article requires employees to "assume the responsibility for taking a positive approach to discipline and to maintain constructive classroom control." Subsection B1. of Article III prescribes a duty day for faculty at JIL of seven and one-half consecutive hours per day. Subsection B2. requires that an employee obtain approval from the principal to leave the school premises for personal reasons during the defined duty hours. Subsection E4. of the same Article provides that "the teacher shall be responsible for the preparation of daily lesson plans to be made available to the substitute in the absence of the teacher. Such plans shall be made in advance at all times." The School Board has also promulgated various "local" rules which pertain to suspension and dismissal of employees, as well as the rehabilitation process to be following once a teacher is cited for deficiencies. They apply to Ferrara's employment. School Year 1981-82 In the spring of 1981, Ferrara heard rumors that he was being reassigned the following school year from exclusively teaching eleventh graders to teaching ninth grade American Government classes as well. At the same time he learned that the teacher of an advanced history class was leaving JIL at the end of the school term. Ferrara approached the social studies de- partment head, Catherine Thornton, concerning the vacancy but was told the vacant slot had been promised to a new teacher named Martin. Ferrara then met with the JIL principal, Dr. Munroe, in June, 1981 and asked that his teaching assignment not be changed. During that meeting he criticized Munroe's selection of athletic coaches to teach in the social studies department. Ferrara considered the department as a dumping ground for coaches and other unqualified teachers. Ferrara's request was turned down and he was reassigned to teach three periods of ninth grade American Government classes and two periods of eleventh grade American History the following year. Moreover, JIL was on double sessions at that time, and Ferrara was switched from the early session (6:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m.) to what he considered to be the less desirable second session that ran from 9:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. He was also required to teach during the last three periods of the second session. Ferrara was extremely displeased, and felt that he was being treated as the new teacher who was typically given the lower grade assignment and the afternoon shift. In an effort to get the new assignment changed, Ferrara met with the department head and later with Dr. Munroe. After having no success, he met with the area superintendent and finally the school superintendent. Their advice was to take the assignment, be evaluated and then see what happens. Ferrara thereafter approached five of the seven members of the school board seeking their assistance in overriding the reassignment decision. This too was unsuccessful. At one of the meetings in Dr. Munroe's office on September 4, one administrator said that if Ferrara was unhappy with the new assignment then maybe he should quit. By this time Ferrara had engaged the services of an attorney, and after he and his attorney were unsuccessful in persuading the administration to change the assignment, he instructed the attorney to file a civil rights action in federal court. This was done on July 29, 1982. The lawsuit sought, among other things, the reassignment of Ferrara to his former teaching assignment in the eleventh grade. That suit has remained pending since then, and at time of final hearing, was on rehearing of an order of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's earlier dis- missal of the action. Charles L. Thornton (no relation to the department chairman) replaced Dr. Munce as principal at JIL in October, 1981. He had previously served as dean of boys at JIL in 1970-71 and recalled that he frequently visited Ferrara's eleventh grade class that year because Ferrara was having a "hard time" with his students. Before he left JIL in September, 1971, Thornton told the then principal of JIL that they had "problems" with Ferrara because of his inability to control his students. This was borne out by Ferrara's 1970-71 evaluation which cited Ferrara for deficiencies in no less than five areas, most of which were attributable to the fact that Ferrara was then an inexperienced high school teacher. When Thornton returned to JIL in October, 1981, he learned that Ferrara had hired an attorney to challenge the school's decision to reassign Ferrara to the ninth grade classroom. Even so, when Ferrara approached Thornton about changing his assignment, Thornton told Ferrara that no teacher assignments would be made mid-stream in the semester, but he would "revisit" the matter at the end of the semester. His denial was confirmed in a written memorandum to Ferrara. He also told Ferrara the change was not to be considered a demotion and that he would keep the same title, salary and number of work hours. At the end of the first semester, Thornton did not change respondent's course assignment because it would have disrupted the master schedule and he had some concern about respondent's performance. Unquestionably, ninth grade students are less mature and more difficult to control from a disciplinary standpoint than other students, but the subject matter of their coursework is easier than the subjects taught to higher grade levels. Although Ferrara considered his new assignment as being the most undesirable of all assignments in the social studies department, other teachers stated that it made no difference to them as to which group of students they were assigned to teach. During the batter part of the first semester, Ferrara was absent due to illness on several occasions. In the second semester he took a leave of absence for the entire semester due to illness apparently brought on by job stress. According to Ferrara, teachers assigned to the first session, which he preferred, were allowed to leave the school around 2:15 p.m. each day. Ferrara's classroom faced the parking lot and he could see them through his windows departing the school while he was required to remain there teaching until 5:15 p.m. He also acknowledged having "problems" with students during the last three periods of each day, and when coupled with the aggravation of seeing his colleagues leaving early, it induced a physical ailment which led to his taking the lengthy sick leave. During his second semester absence, Ferrara prepared no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute, although he was responsible for doing so for the entire year. His substitute contacted him for assistance, but Ferrara declined to offer any, saying it was the substitute's responsibility to do the work. It is noteworthy that Ferrara's substitute had some disciplinary problems when she took over his class, but after receiving assistance from the deans, she had only "minor" problems the remainder of the semester. Thornton prepared an annual evaluation of Ferrara in June, 1982, and gave him an overall rating of satisfactory. However, he found Ferrara deficient in the following areas: discipline of students, attending required extracurricular activities, teaching in a manner in which all students in the class could comprehend and relating in a more positive manner with his peers. Other than Ferrara's use of "various methods and materials," Thornton made no comments concerning Ferrara's areas of strength. The first deficiency was based upon Ferrara's inability to control the classroom environment. More specifically, Ferrara referred more students to the dean than any other classroom teacher at JIL, and for what appeared to be minor infractions. These included talking out of turn, squeaking a chair, going to the pencil sharpener without permission and leaving one's desk without permission. On some occasions Ferrara would refer entire groups of students. In all, Ferrara's referrals constituted around 25 percent of all referrals made by the 145 JIL faculty members. The dean of students was asked by Ferrara on at least three occasions to visit his classroom because his class was out of control. The dean observed that Ferrara had very little control over his students, managed the class "poorly," and concluded that very little learning was taking place. The dean discussed with Ferrara how to handle minor classroom infractions and advised Ferrara to review the JIL Handbook provisions regarding discipline. However, Ferrara was not responsive to these suggestions. Ferrara was also criticized because his students had difficulty in understanding "his approach to teaching." This was apparent from the fact that Ferrara had an extremely high rate of failure for his students. Ferrara himself conceded that his teaching performance began deteriorating in the 1981-82 school year and never again reached the level of performance achieved by him prior to that year. The evaluation noted that Ferrara did "not have an effective relationship with associates." This was confirmed through testimony that after his reassignment became effective, Ferrara would not speak to most of the members of the department, and no longer socialized with staff at the department's workroom. Even Ferrara acknowledged that after September, 1981 he became "reserved," did not talk to colleagues arid appeared unhappy and upset. Thornton required mandatory attendance by faculty at only two school functions each year: open house when parents, students and faculty met at the school, and graduation. Ferrara attended neither saying graduation was "too sentimental" and that he was always ill whenever open houses were held. Ferrara was given a copy of the above evaluation by Thornton, reviewed it and signed it on June 8, 1982. However, he told Thornton he disagreed with the contents of the evaluation. At their meeting, Thornton acknowledged to Ferrara that he had sufficient knowledge of the subject matter, and found Ferrara to be well-versed in his subjects. School Year 1982-83 Because of problems with Ferrara in 1981-82, the department chairman recommended that Ferrara be assigned to teach five ninth grade American Government classes in school year 1982-82. This recommendation was approved by the assistant principal for curriculum who draws up the semester schedule, and later by Thornton. While teaching a class in November 1982, respondent caught a student, K. B., mimicking him in class, grabbed the student by his arm and escorted him to his seat. He did so with such force that it left bruise marks on the student's arm. Ferrara was counseled by Thornton following this incident. In January, 1982, respondent gave a student an F in her coursework for disciplinary reasons. This is contrary to school board policy and resulted in the issuance of a memorandum by Thornton to Ferrara on January 21, 1983. Various former students of Ferrara during the 1982-83 school year testified concerning their impression of his teaching style and manner. Their comments included statements that he "wasn't normal" and was "different" from other teachers. It was established that he would not answer questions from many students, either ignoring them or telling them the answer was in the textbook. He called them "stupid," "immature" and "jackasses" on a number of occasions, that he `hated" teaching them, and told them he should be teaching a higher grade level but was being punished by the administration. It was further established that Ferrara frequently yelled in class, and that his efforts to discipline students were unsuccessful. After awhile, some students would make deliberate efforts to provoke Ferrara by beginning coughing, spells or squeaking their chairs, knowing that his efforts at discipline were merely a "show" and that they need not obey him. Ferrara would also frequently discuss in class his lawsuit against the school board without relating it to the subject matter. His most common teaching technique was to give students a reading assignment from the textbook and have the students answer the review questions at the end of the chapter. Only occasionally did he give a lecture. Most students indicated they did not learn a great deal in his class, and found the instruction boring. It was established that cheating frequently occurred when tests were given, and answer sheets were passed around while Ferrara was in the room. Many believed he was punishing them by keeping the windows shut and the air-conditioner turned off on hot days. Indeed, on one day in late April, Thornton went to Ferrara's class and found it extremely "hot" with the air-conditioner off and the windows closed. Ferrara was teaching the class wearing a sweater. Thornton ordered that the windows be opened to avoid having a student pass out from the heat. Ferrara justified his actions by contending the air-conditioner was frequently inoperative and that the windows often times stuck. This was disputed by the building maintenance chief. He also stated that he kept the windows closed because of traffic noises emanating from a nearby street. However, he conceded that he kept the students in a hot room on at least one occasion as punishment. Because of complaints made by parents and students to Thornton during the first semester, a conference was called by Thornton with respondent on January 28, 1983. At that time he gave Ferrara written notice that his behavior was "inappropriate," and that he must regain control of his classroom. On April 20, 1983, Thornton had a conference with Ferrara concerning an allegation that he had called a student an "ass." After Ferrara admitted this was true, Thornton told him not to call students such names again, that it would not be tolerated and that he should refer to the teacher's Code of Ethics which proscribed such conduct. On May 23, 1983, Thornton found two of Ferrara's students wandering in the hallway without a hall pass. They had been told to leave Ferrara's class, and that he did not care where they went. During the school year, Ferrara continued to disregard the requirement to complete lesson plans. On occasions when Ferrara was absent, the substitutes found no regular or emergency lesson plans available. Instead, the substitutes had to write their own plans and give assignments, without having any idea when Ferrara would return. The assignments completed by the students for the substitute teacher were thrown in the waste basket when Ferrara returned because he found them ungraded. However, substitute teachers do not normally grade papers. During the school year the dean of students continued to receive numerous discipline referrals from respondent. The reasons for referral were generally minor, which indicated Ferrara did not have proper control of his classes. In contrast, his substitute teachers did not experience this type of problem when they substituted for Ferrara. Some of the referred students were those who had no other disciplinary problems with other teachers. On some occasions, entire groups were once again referred to the dean. In short, there was no improvement in respondent's classroom management from the prior year. At the same time, the guidance counselors continued to receive numerous requests from students to transfer out of his classes. At the end of school year 1982-83, the department chairman wrote Thornton a memorandum which listed by teacher the number of textbooks missing or not returned to the teacher. Ferrara had sixty-three textbooks missing, which was far in excess of other department staff. In addition, although he returned twenty-three of forty-eight new textbooks assigned to him at the beginning of the semester for one course, seventeen were so defaced with obscenities that they were unusable. Ferrara did not deny that he lost the textbooks, but stated that some books were smaller than normal classroom size, and could be easily carried out of class in a concealed fashion by a student. He feared that if he began searching students, he would suffer possible repercussions from doing so. Despite these losses, Ferrara refused assistance from the area director of secondary education in creating a system of inventory and control for textbooks. In his annual evaluation prepared on May 26, 1983, Ferrara was cited for deficiencies in the following areas: teaching techniques, classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. In addition, Thornton attached to the evaluation a typed sheet containing specific recommendations for improvement in each of the four areas. The sheet noted that Thornton was "willing to provide (Ferrara) whatever assistance necessary in each of the . . . cited areas." Thornton also noted that Ferrara has strength in the areas of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, appearance, educational qualifications and in adherence to the defined duty day. Thornton and Ferrara held several meetings concerning the annual evaluation. Each deficiency was discussed, and Thornton made suggestions on how to improve in those areas. However, Ferrara was not receptive to these suggestions, and complained of unfair treatment in his course assignments. He also repeatedly discussed his lawsuit. He continued to maintain he was better suited to teach the eleventh grade even though he was certified to teach both the ninth and eleventh grades. Thornton advised Ferrara he was responsible to his students no matter what other problems he believed he had, and that he should work to improve his performance. School Year 1983-84 In school year 1983-84, Ferrara's teaching assignment did not change. In fact, unlike the prior two years, Ferrara did not request a change in his teaching assignment. He also did not request a transfer to another school although these were procedures for doing so. 1/ Ferrara's failure to control his classroom continued into the new school year. During the year the assistant principal (dean) in charge of discipline visited Ferrara's classroom at least ten to fifteen times after Ferrara requested his assistance in regaining control of the classroom. On his visits the dean found a "hostile" atmosphere, and verbal exchanges taking place between Ferrara and his students. He concluded that no learning could take place in this atmosphere. The dean noted that no other regular teacher or substitute had such classroom management problems. Ferrara's referrals to the dean represented a larger number than all other faculty members combined. The dean also observed Ferrara telling his students that he did not like teaching immature ninth graders. Similar observations were made by another JIL dean. Ferrara was counseled by the dean who told him that students felt Ferrara did not like them, and that his discipline techniques were unfair. Testimony by Ferrara's students confirmed that his teaching style did not change. He continued to call them names such as "stupid" and "immature" and told them he did not enjoy teaching ninth graders. His lawsuit was also a frequent subject of class discussion. The students also complained that Ferrara refused to open the windows on hot days when the air-conditioning was inoperative because of outside noise. The latter complaint was noteworthy since Thornton had previously given written instructions to Ferrara on September 16 and 26, 1983 concerning complaints about Ferrara keeping the room too hot. During the year, a parent requested that she and her daughter meet with Ferrara and a school counselor concerning a problem the daughter was having in Ferrara's class. At the conference, Ferrara dwelled primarily on his lawsuit against the school board and did not seem concerned with the real purpose of the conference. This prompted a complaint by the parent against Ferrara. Students continued to request transfers out of Ferrara's classroom at an increasing rate. Although two guidance counselors advised Ferrara of these complaints, they observed no change in his behavior. Based upon student and parent complaints about a high failure rate, Ferrara was instructed by Thornton in October, 1983 to furnish each student with a mid-marking report (progress reports) advising them they were not performing to expectations. This report would alert students and parents that a student was in danger of failing. Although such reports are required by school board policy, Ferrara frequently did not prepare these reports. In fact, he advised Thornton he felt they were unnecessary and would not prepare them unless Thornton allowed teachers to complete them during class time. There were thirty-six weeks during school year 1983-84. All teachers were required to prepare lesson plans for each of those weeks, and to turn them in prior to the beginning of each school week. The plans were then filed, and in the event a teacher was absent, the substitute teacher would use the plans and instruct the class without a break in continuity. Ferrara was absent for three weeks in the spring of 1984. However, he left no regular or emergency lesson plans for his substitute. During his absence, the substitute had no disciplinary problems. When he unexpectedly returned to class after this absence, the students booed him, and then, according to the substitute, the "entire class went out of control." Ferrara thereafter required his students to repeat the work previously done for the substitute. Ferrara continued to ignore repeated requests by the department chairman to make lesson plans available. These requests were in the form of memoranda to all department personnel on August 25, October 5, November 17 and December 7, 1983 and January 17, 1984. As of February, 1984 he had turned in only three weeks' plans for the preceding twenty-week period. The department chairman wrote him a memorandum on February 10 requesting that such plans be filed. Even so, in June, 1984 the department chairman reviewed the lesson plans filed by department staff for the prior year. She found that Ferrara had completed plans for only five of the thirty-six weeks during the just completed school year. Of those completed most were generally unsatisfactory. Ferrara did not deny this, but pointed to the fact that two or three other department teachers were also continually tardy in filing their plans. This was confirmed by the department chairman. Ferrara began to come to work late and leave early during the school year although he was warned several times to adhere to the defined duty days. He also had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Because of Ferrara's continuing performance problems, Thornton placed Ferrara on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure effective April 25, 1984. This procedure is designed to provide assistance to teachers having performance problems. Basically, it provides the teacher with an explanation of any deficiencies, assistance and guidance in the cited areas, and an "adequate" period of time in which to correct them. Its main purpose is to salvage an employee's career. In his letter, Thornton told Ferrara he was being placed on the NEAT procedure because of deficiencies in the following areas: inability to use acceptable teaching techniques; inability to maintain a positive classroom environment; inability to establish and maintain a professional and effective working relationship with parents, students and colleagues; and failure to submit proper records, including, but not limited to, progress reports and lesson plans, as required by the school center, the School Board and state law. Ferrara was given until October 16, 1984 to "fully correct these deficiencies." The two met in a conference May 4, 1984 to discuss the procedure and Ferrara's responsibility to correct the deficiencies by the established date. It was pointed out to Ferrara that he would be given time off to visit other personnel while seeking assistance, and that three individuals on the county staff were available for consultation on his noted deficiencies. Ferrara viewed the NEAT procedure as a "charade" and a way for the School Board to fire him. Although he admitted he resented being placed on NEAT, Ferrara stated he respected the system and did not intend to ignore it because he knew that to do so would give grounds to the Board to dismiss him. On May 30, 1984, Thornton prepared an annual evaluation reflecting the same deficiencies as were used to place Ferrara on the NEAT procedure. It also noted that Ferrara's areas of strength were his educational qualifications and his use of good oral and written language. Ferrara was given a copy of the evaluation and, although he disagreed with its contents, signed it on May 30, 1984. School Year 1984-85 On August 21, 1984, Ferrara met with Thornton and the assistant principal and discussed various types of assistance that were available to him which had not yet been provided. Ferrara told Thornton he was not interested in any assistance and walked out of Thornton's office. On October 22, 1984, Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the following deficiencies required corrective action: continued failure to submit timely lesson plans; continued inability to establish positive rapport with staff, parents and students; continued failure to maintain a positive classroom atmosphere; and a continued deficiency in his teaching techniques. Ferrara was also told that there had been "some improvement in (his) performance," and that Thornton believed he was "making an effort to improve (his) performance, and because of this, the time for correcting his deficiencies under the NEAT procedure was being extended until the end of the school year. During the school year Ferrara's classroom management problems continued. For example, one guidance counselor observed that most of the students visiting her were students in Ferrara's classes. In fact, over half of the students she gave counseling to desired to transfer out of Ferrara's class and sought her assistance in doing so. The dean of students observed that some 35 percent to 40 percent of total disciplinary referrals by all teachers came from Ferrara, including six students at one time. This dean found most of the referrals unnecessary, and ones that could have been handled by Ferrara. In addition, she was called to Ferrara's classroom about four times each semester to calm down the class. It was established that the students deliberately "egged" Ferrara on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. Other credible testimony established that Ferrara's class was out of control on many occasions, and that this disruption affected the amount of learning that took place in the classroom. One dean suggested to Ferrara that he observe other teachers so that he might improve his classroom performance. In teacher-parent conferences, Ferrara preferred to discuss his personal problems with the school board administration rather than the problems that the student was experiencing. In other instances, Ferrara would not respond to requests by parents to contact them. On September 19, 1984, at Thornton's request, the area administrator, H. W. Berryman, visited Ferrara's classroom to observe and monitor Ferrara. This was the only teacher observation that Berryman had performed as an area administrator. On that particular day Ferrara needed some ten minutes to get the class started. Berryman noted that during Ferrara's lecture, only a few students were attentive, and that most were note-passing, carrying on conversations and creating mild disruptions which Ferrara failed to stop. However, Berryman complemented Ferrara on his knowledge of the subject matter and said his overall delivery was reasonably good. He suggested Ferrara take less time to "start-up the class, and to take steps to insure that his class was more attentive during the lecture. On October 4, 1984, Ferrara was observed by another administrator, Dr. Mona Jensen, for the purpose of assessing his teacher performance. This was also done at Thornton's request. Jensen is a consultant certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) and a trainer of other administrators in the use of FPMS. The FPMS utilizes a form for evaluating teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four areas: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills. Dr. Jensen monitored Ferrara in these four areas and provided Thornton and Ferrara with a copy of her written report. Among other things, she observed a negative interaction between Ferrara and his students, and that there was a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. Some of his comments were caustic in nature, and he never smiled in class. Like Berryman, she observed students talking to one another and not participating in the activity. She recommended that improvements be made in all areas which her report addressed. On October 29, 1984, Ferrara was observed by Lois Biddix, who is also a FPMS certified state trainer. Biddix used the same type of form as did Jensen in evaluating Ferrara. On her visit, Biddix observed students talking to one another, and participating in activities unrelated to the lesson. She described the class as sedentary and lethargic, with students suffering from boredom and frustration. She attributed this to Ferrara's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. These observations were consistent with those made by Berryman and Jensen, and her recommendations for improvement were in the same areas as those of Jensen. Dr. Jensen returned to Ferrara's class for a second observation on January 31, 1985. While Ferrara spoke clearly and directly on that day, and had good communicative skills, Dr. Jensen found most students did not participate in the discussion. She also found a lack of positive reinforcement on the part of Ferrara. During the lecture, Ferrara demonstrated anger at a remark made by a student, and told the student that if she wanted a confrontation, he would gladly accept her challenge. Dr. Jensen's evaluation and notes were given to Ferrara after the visit. The recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. A number of Ferrara's 1984-85 students testified at final hearing. Their testimony painted a picture of continued class management problems. For example, it was confirmed that groups of students would collectively begin coughing at one time or squeaking their chairs in harmony to antagonize Ferrara or test his mettle. It was also confirmed that he continued to call freshmen "stupid" and "immature," that he told his students he hated teaching ninth graders and that the school administration was wrong in making him teach that level of students. He also discussed his pending lawsuit during class hours and referred to the school administration in a negative manner. On at least one occasion he discussed the qualifications or lack thereof of another department teacher. It was further pointed out that Ferrara refused to give credit for assignments given by his substitute teacher. There were complaints that Ferrara punished the students for talking by making them sit in a hot classroom without opening the windows or running the air-conditioning. There was also a "lot" of cheating during class even though Ferrara was present in the room. The general consensus of most students was that the class was boring, and that they did not learn a great deal in this type of environment. Ferrara was required to spend 7 1/2 hours each day on campus. 2/ During the year, he did not always arrive at school on a punctual basis or spend the required number of duty hours at school. On April 11, 1985, the department head wrote Thornton a memorandum criticizing Ferrara for his repeated tardiness, and leaving before 2:15 p.m. After Thornton notified Ferrara about this complaint, there was an improvement on his part. During the second semester of the school year, a guidance counselor, Elizabeth Konen, approached Ferrara and told him that the parents of one of his students desired a parent-teacher conference to discuss their child. Ferrara told Konen he did not have time to meet with parents. Konen found this to be the usual response of Ferrara whenever such a request was made. On another occasion, he wrote a note to Konen stating he had no time to meet with parents, but after Thornton intervened and ordered a conference, Ferrara attended. In December 1984, Thornton requested that Ferrara produce proof that he gave his students progress reports as required by Board policy. Ferrara could produce only two such reports, although he claimed four others had also been given reports. This was after Ferrara had been previously criticized on October 21, 1984 for the same deficiency. On January 8, 1985, Thornton again gave written notice to Ferrara that he give timely progress reports to all students who were failing or working below expectation. Even after this second warning, a student, S. Z., complained to Konen in February, 1985 that she had not been given a progress report by Ferrara. This was brought to Thornton's attention in a letter written by S. Z.'s mother. On March 25, 1985, Thornton wrote respondent a letter outlining his continued areas of "serious deficiencies," and his lack of improvement in those areas since being placed on the NEAT procedure. He was warned that unless there was "significant improvement," Thornton would have no choice except to recommend he be terminated. Ferrara was urged to implement the suggestions outlined in the letter, and was told that "any reasonable assistance" requested by him would be given. Despite receiving numerous criticisms for failing to turn in lesson plans, respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year 1984-85. However, he did turn in a complete set of plans at the end of the year, but they did not indicate what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met. On June 10, 1985, Ferrara was given his annual evaluation for the school year. It noted numerous continued deficiencies in three broad areas: classroom environment, teacher attitudes and professional standards and work habits. The only noted areas of strength were knowledge of the subject matter and use of proper grammar and written language. In his meeting with Thornton, Ferrara was told, among other things, that he should not make unprofessional remarks to his students, that he must adhere to defined duty days, that he must file lesson plans and progress reports on a timely basis, and his attitude with peers should improve. School Year 1985-86 Despite Ferrara's failure to correct all deficiencies by the end of school year 1984-85, Thornton made a decision to give Ferrara one last chance to rehabilitate himself under the NEAT procedure. On August 19, 1985 Thornton advised Ferrara by letter that the NEAT procedure was being extended until November 1, 1985 and that he must correct all deficiencies by that date. This gave, Ferrara a total of sixteen academic months under the remedial program. The letter also stated that if the deficiencies were not corrected by November 1, Thornton would make a recommendation to the Superintendent of Schools concerning Ferrara's employment status. Respondent had been criticized for giving an unusually high rate of failing grades to his students during prior years. It was established that his failure rate was substantially higher than for other teachers in school years 1981-82 and 1982-83. For example, his failure rates in 1981-82 and 1982-83 were 24 percent and 33 percent, respectively. In 1983-84, it was a little more in line (18 percent) with that of the other teachers to whom he was compared. After the first semester of school year 1985-86 had ended, Thornton reviewed Ferrara's grades and found the failure rate had been substantially reduced. Indeed, it was then slightly over 10 percent, thereby supporting Ferrara's contention that he had improved in this cited area of deficiency. On November 18, 1985, a thirty minute evaluation of Ferrara's class was conducted by Sandra Cowne, an assistant principal at JIL. Among other things, Cowne found that Ferrara still had no up-to-date lesson plan book. She noted that Ferrara was in need of improvement in four areas of performance. All other areas indicated satisfactory performance. On December 2, 1985, D:. Jensen visited Ferrara's classroom to monitor and evaluate his performance. The purpose of the visit was to determine if Ferrara had implemented the recommendations for improving instruction previously made after her earlier visits. Dr. Jensen asked to meet with Ferrara just prior to the hour of observation but he refused saying he didn't want to discuss anything. She then asked for his lesson plan and was given a plan that was too brief and had insufficient detail. During the actual observation, she found that Ferrara had not added any positive teaching behaviors to his technique although she had suggested this to him after her earlier observations. According to Dr. Jensen, Ferrara's main deficiency was that he failed to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. She concluded that Ferrara was an ineffective teacher, ranking below average due to his lack of positive behaviors. A copy of her evaluation and notes was given to respondent. H. W. Berryman made a second visit to Ferrara's classroom on December 10, 1985 for a repeat evaluation. Berryman initially noted that Ferrara had heeded his prior advice from September, 1984, and had speeded up the start-up time for beginning his instruction. However, Berryman continued to be concerned with the lack of involvement by a large majority of the students in the classroom. Although he found that Ferrara had "in-depth content knowledge" of the subject matter, he concluded that Ferrara had "serious negative attitudinal problems in reacting to all of the students assigned to his classes." Several of Ferrara's students testified about their experiences in Ferrara's classroom during the first semester. They confirmed that respondent's teaching techniques had not changed from prior years. For example, it was established that the usual disruptions occurred during his class, such as students sleeping, passing notes, talking and generally being inattentive. Ferrara again called his freshmen students "immature" and "childish," and told them that he had been demoted to the freshman class because the school board could not fire him. It was pointed out that once he told the students that they were immature, Ferrara would lose control over the class. There were continuing complaints that the classroom was too hot, and that Ferrara told the students if they were unhappy about the room temperature to complain to the administration. On one occasion, he refused to move his classroom to an adjacent empty room even though a student had vomited on the floor and the stench remained after the area was cleaned. It was also established that Ferrara continued to talk in class about his pending lawsuit and the problems he was having with the school administration. During the first semester, Ferrara continued to send large numbers of students to the dean for minor infractions. He also sent as many as six at a time. Ferrara was now disciplining his students before referral by making them write repetitious sentences. However, this is considered to be an inappropriate form of discipline. This form of discipline prompted complaints from both students and parents to the administration. It was confirmed through testimony of an assistant principal that respondent's classroom control had not improved over a three- year period. This observation was concurred in by various guidance counselors who received visits from Ferrara's students. During the first semester of the school year, there was no improvement in respondent's professional relationship with his peers. He refused to speak to most colleagues, and openly expressed his disdain for the department chairman. When respondent was in the department workroom, the atmosphere was hostile and uncomfortable. Similarly, like in other years Ferrara did not attend open house. He also failed to provide adequate lesson plans as previously ordered on a number of occasions. At the end of the first semester, Thornton concluded that sixteen academic months was a sufficient time to allow Ferrara to correct his deficiencies. Finding that respondent was "damaging" his students, that no improvement in Ferrara's performance or attitude had occurred, that he was making no contribution to the school program, and that he was still besieged with student and parent complaints, Thornton concluded that disciplinary action was justified. Thornton did acknowledge that Ferrara had improved in the areas of adhering to duty hours, issuing progress reports, taking roll call and reducing the number of failures. Even so, he concluded that this was insufficient to satisfy his overall teaching performance deficiencies. Moreover, he found that Ferrara's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired. Thornton accordingly recommended that Ferrara be terminated. Ferrara's suspension without pay became effective on February 19, 1986 and he has remained in that status since that time. Respondent's Case Ferrara traced all of his problems to what he perceived to be an uncalled for demotion to the ninth grade classroom in school year 1981-82. He felt it to be unjust, and an action which ignored the seniority he had attained over the years. He acknowledged that once the reassignment occurred he became demoralized and bitter and was never the same teacher again. Ferrara did not deny that he called students names. He also conceded that he had problems maintaining classroom discipline, but suggested he was being paid to teach, not to discipline. Ferrara further admitted he yelled at students, and sent a great many to the dean's office, but blamed much of this on a small group of students who always instigated trouble in his classroom. Ferrara asserted his classroom discipline would actually improve at times during this period, but that each time Thornton sent a note criticizing him, he became demoralized and would again lapse into his prior ways. Although Ferrara considered the NEAT procedure a means by which petitioner could fire him, he contended he attempted to correct his deficiencies. However, it was Ferrara's contention that only through reassignment to the eleventh grade could he actually improve and correct his deficiencies. He believes Thornton to be biased since Thornton is a defendant in Ferrara's lawsuit. However, independent administrators confirmed that the deficiencies cited in Thornton's memoranda were real, and that Ferrara had made no visible effort to correct most of them. Moreover, contrary to his assertions, Ferrara was accorded adequate notice, sufficient means and ample time to correct his cited deficiencies. In this regard, the School Board satisfied all regulations pertaining to the rehabilitation and dismissal of an employee. Ferrara also pointed out that Thornton prepared a special file called the "Larry Ferrara Drawer" in November, 1982 so that Ferrara's actions and performance could be documented. However, Ferrara's teaching performance was in issue by this time, and Thornton was simply conforming with various state, local and union requirements that potential disciplinary action have a well-defined paper trail. Ferrara did not deny he missed all graduations and open houses from 1981 through 1985. He justified his absence from graduation ceremonies on the ground they were too "sentimental," and stated he was always ill whenever open houses were scheduled. Ferrara denied that students were punished by keeping the room hot. He blamed the heat on an often inoperative and inadequate window air- conditioning unit in his classroom, and windows that were difficult to open. This was denied by the school maintenance chief. Various students corroborated Ferrara's claim that the air-conditioner did not always work, but it is found that Ferrara sometimes punished his students in this manner. Ferrara attempted to repudiate the testimony of former students who testified for petitioner at final hearing by offering favorable testimony of other former students. However, the latter testimony either pertained to time periods too remote to be relevant to this proceeding, or was discredited by more persuasive and credible testimony from petitioner's witnesses. Ferrara contended he prepared all required lesson plans but waited until the end of the school year to turn them in. However, even it this were true, this was contrary to school policy since such plans were required to be turned in the week before they were to be used. Ferrara suggested that most of his difficulties were caused by his creating "waves" at JIL. As noted above, he believed Thornton and the administration were biased against him because he had sued them, and because he had publicly criticized various school policies and individuals in the news media. But it was never established that such animosity existed, or if it did, that it played a role in the dismissal process. Finally, Ferrara professed a sincere desire to continue in the teaching profession, albeit at a more mature grade level. He does not wish to be terminated after a twenty-one year career. He desires to be reinstated at JIL and allowed to teach the eleventh grade as he did during the years 1970- 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency (inefficiency), misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties as set forth in the Conclusions of Law, and that he be dismissed as-an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board. DONE and 0RDERED this 11th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a teacher. The Petitioner seeks such dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, (b) immorality, (c) misconduct, (d) willful neglect of duties, and (e) moral turpitude. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and on the parties's stipulations, I make the following findings of fact: Facts stipulated to by the parties Virgil L. Morgan is the duly appointed Superintendent of Schools of Broward County, Florida, and is legally authorized to represent to the School Board of Broward County, Florida, pursuant to statute, that any member of the instructional and/or administrative staff be dismissed from or with the Broward County School System. The address of Virgil L. Morgan is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The address of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The Respondent, Marion Wright, is an employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, holding a continuing contract of employment since December 5, 1968, and has currently been employed at Nova High School, 3600 College Avenue, Davie, Broward County, Florida, as an American History and Geography teacher. The last known address of the Respondent is 151 Northwest 33rd Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Other general facts While employed at Nova High School, the Respondent was also the coach of the girls junior varsity basketball team. Facts regarding motor vehicle operations The Respondent's ex-students and assistant coaches often moved his car from one place to another on the Nova campus during the school day. These ex- students and assistant coaches were licensed drivers. The Respondent sometimes also permitted several students who were seniors and who were licensed drivers to move his car while it was on campus. It is not unusual for teachers at Nova High School to permit students to drive their cars. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent permitted unlicensed students to operate his motor vehicle. On January 22, 1988, Andrea Session and Kim Williams, both students at Nova High School who were also members of the girls basketball team, went to the Respondent's classroom shortly after first period began. Neither of the two girls had a driver license. Kim Williams asked the Respondent for the keys to his pickup truck in order to retrieve her school books which were locked in the truck. The Respondent gave the keys to the two girls and they left. It was not uncommon for the girls to leave their books in the Respondent's truck or car, because the Respondent would frequently drive these two girls (and others) from their home to early morning basketball practice before school. They would often leave their school books in the Respondent's vehicle during basketball practice and pick them up later. On January 22, 1988, while in possession of the keys to the Respondent's pickup, Kim Williams attempted to move the pickup and ran into a parked car in the school parking lot. The Respondent did not authorize Kim Williams to drive his pickup truck on January 22, 1988. Facts regarding taking students out of class The Respondent never requested that Kim Williams, Andrea Session, or any other student or member of his basketball team be excused from other classes, except as was consistent with being excused from class on game days. The Respondent did not write passes requesting that students be excused from other classes. Nor did he usually permit students without passes to remain in his classroom. When Kim or Andrea would come to the Respondent's class without a pass, the Respondent would usually ask them to return to their class. On occasion, Kim and Andrea would skip classes and not go to the Respondent's classroom. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent arranged for the unauthorized or illegal removal of any student from scheduled class periods. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent provided females students on his basketball team with passes to remove them from their regular scheduled classes on the days that basketball games were scheduled in order for them to rest or relax for the game. Facts regarding transportation of students off campus and to liquor stores The Respondent frequently transported students from their homes to early morning basketball practice. The Respondent has taken adult female assistant coaches to the Double Feature Liquor Store, and to other liquor stores, and has purchased beer for them on occasion. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students to a liquor store, bought alcoholic beverages, and consumed alcoholic beverages with students. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students off campus on personal errands during the students' scheduled class periods. Facts regarding soliciting false statements and submitting a false affidavit After the Respondent became aware that he was being accused of providing alcoholic beverages to two students, he went to see Ms. Bonnie Session, the mother of one of the students. The Respondent told Bonnie Session about the situation he was in and asked her to sign a statement on his behalf. Thereafter, Adrienne Session, an older daughter of Ms. Session, called the Respondent and told him she had something for him from her mother. Adrienne gave the Respondent a written statement that purported to be signed by Bonnie Session. The Respondent took the statement to a notary public and asked that it be notarized. The notary called on the telephone and spoke to someone she believed to be Bonnie Session. The person to whom the notary spoke acknowledged having signed the statement. The notary then notarized the document and gave it back to the Respondent. At a later date, under circumstances that are not at all clear, Bonnie Session and her two daughters went to the same notary, after having been guided there by the Respondent, and had some additional documents notarized. The Respondent made some efforts, directly and indirectly, to obtain exculpatory statements from several people, but the nature of those efforts cannot be discerned from the credible evidence in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent encouraged any students to falsify their accounts of any matters related to the issues in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent intentionally distorted, or caused to be misrepresented, any facts regarding an affidavit that was purportedly signed by Bonnie Session.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order in this case dismissing all administrative charges against the Respondent, Marion Wright, and reinstating him with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4734 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. To facilitate an understanding of the rulings which follow, attention is directed to the fact that, for the most part, the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent has been found to be unworthy of belief and to be an insufficient basis for findings of fact. The two principal accusers have both, while under oath, changed major portions of their stories on more than one occasion. The credibility of their stories is also impaired in large part by the fact that the stories told by the two principal witnesses are inconsistent in a number of telling details, and those stories also conflict with the testimony of other witnesses who are much more worthy of belief. It is also noted that the candor of Respondent's testimony was not without its own tarnish in places. While the Respondent's denial of the charges against him has been accepted in substance, this is largely because of the absence of believable evidence in support of the charges rather than because of any great reliance on the Respondent's candor. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Paragraph 3: First sentence rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Second sentence accepted. Paragraph 4: For the most part, rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. It is accepted that there was an on-campus accident involving Respondent's vehicle. Paragraph 5: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant. [The presentation of the testimony of the Assistant State Attorney appears to have been primarily for the purpose of vouching for the truthfulness of the other witnesses against Respondent. Such vouching is an inappropriate form of proof. See Fuller v. State, 450 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).] Paragraph 8: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Remainder accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 5 and 6: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. In any event, the subject matter of the summary consists of subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 16 through 30: Rejected as constituting, for the most part, a summary of the history of many of the reasons for not making findings of fact rather than actual proposed findings. (Many of the details in this summary form the basis for the conclusion that the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent is unreliable.). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be suspended from employment for twenty days without pay for misconduct and unprofessional conduct in violation of School District Policies 1.013 and 1.014, Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.006(4)(b), (5)(a) and (5)(h), and School Board Bulletins #P-12542-CAO/COO-Count Day and Class Size Reduction Review, and #P-12519-CAO/COO-Florida Department of Education Student Enrollment Procedures.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board (the Board or Petitioner), operates, controls, and supervises all public schools within the Palm Beach County School District (the District), as authorized by Subsection 1001.32(2), Florida Statutes (2008). The District School Superintendent, Dr. Arthur C. Johnson (Superintendent Johnson) is responsible for the administration, management, and supervision of instruction in the District, as provided in Subsection 1001.32(3), Florida Statutes (2008). Respondent, Dr. Gwendolyn Johnson (Dr. Johnson or Respondent) was the principal at Independence Middle School (Independence) during the 2007 to 2008 school year. In her thirty-five years with the District, Dr. Johnson was a principal for eight years, an assistant principal for eleven and a half years, a guidance counselor for approximately nine years, and, before that, an elementary and high school occupational specialist. At Independence, Respondent's assistant principals were Kathleen Carden, Martest Sheffield, and Scott Duhy. Although the projected enrollment was 1174, not the minimum number of 1201 required to justify having a third assistant principal, Dr. Johnson requested and, on May 15, 2007, received approval to keep the third assistant principal, Mr. Duhy, subject to reaching or exceeding the required enrollment by the time the count of students was taken on or about the eleventh day of school in the fall. The increase over the projection was possible because Independence was the 2007 receiving school for students whose parents transferred them from D- or F-rated schools under No Child Left Behind Act. For the 2007-2008 school year, Dr. Johnson assigned primary responsibility for maintaining a count of the student population to another one of the assistant principals, Dr. Carden. In addition to determining the number of assistant principals, the enrollment count is used by the District to determine other staffing, including the number of teachers, and guidance counselors assigned to each school. Attendance at Independence was reported by teachers each school day on bubbled attendance sheets. The sheets were scanned each day and the data stored in a computer program called the Total Education or Resource Management System (TERMS). The sheets were returned to the teachers who used them to record attendance for a two-week period before signing and submitting them, and receiving new computer-generated biweekly attendance scan sheets. On August 23, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12519-CAO/COO/FO/FTE), that any student who had never attended any period since the first day of school must have a withdrawn code entered into the TERMS program by August 27, 2007. Dr. Johnson e-mailed the Bulletin to her administrative staff and convened a meeting of that group to review it. Her secretary also e-mailed a reminder of the requirements to the staff on August 27, 2007. Teachers reported students who never attended school from the beginning of the year, the so-called "no-shows," by making handwritten notes or by drawing lines through the student's name on the attendance sheets, expecting those names to be removed from their rosters. Students who never showed up were not bubbled absent on the attendance sheets. A student aide in the student services office scanned the sheets, so the school's data processor, Angela Jones, did not see the teacher's notes and make changes in the computer. Once teachers kept getting biweekly attendance sheets with the names of no-shows and transfers on them, they started e-mailing or otherwise notifying Ms. Jones who began to keep a running list of no shows and transfers. Ms. Jones was not allowed to enter the withdrawal code in TERMS until authorized to do so by either Dr. Johnson or Dr. Carden, as shown by their e-mails. Rather than following the instructions in Bulletin # P-12519 to withdraw all no-shows by August 27, 2007, no-shows were treated like transfers and were not withdrawn until the student's new school requested their records. Dr. Johnson's claim that she was not aware that procedures outlined in the District's Bulletin of August 23, 2007, were not being followed by Ms. Jones and Dr. Carden, is not credible. She was present at the meetings in her office and her conference room, well after the August deadline, during which Ms. Jones continued to receive instructions to wait for approval to make withdrawals. On August 31, 2007, the District notified all principals, including Dr. Johnson, by memorandum (Bulletin # P- 12542-CAO/COO) that the District's enrollment count day was September 7, 2007, and that the count would be taken from TERMS. Dr. Johnson sent an e-mail to all teachers to count students, as directed in the Bulletin of August 23, by only including students who had been in attendance at least one period since school began on August 22, thereby excluding no-shows from the count. Prior to 2007, this would have been the enrollment number that the school faxed or e-mailed to the District. For the first time in 2007, the number used by the District was the number taken from TERMS summary enrollment screen that included no-shows at Independence. The District also relied on that data for its Full Time Equivalent (FTE) survey and report to the State Department of Education (DOE). The FTE count is used to determine per pupil funding by the State. The actual number of students at Independence on September 7, 2007, was 1188 but the number taken from the TERMS database and reported was 1214, a twenty-six student discrepancy that was later, after an audit, reduced to twenty-four. In October 2007, Dr. Johnson falsely verified the accuracy of the FTE survey that was, subsequent to the audit, determined to be an over-count of 23 students. Dr. Johnson testified that she verified the accuracy of the count relying on the work of Dr. Carden, Ms. Jones, Exceptional Student Education Coordinator Carol Lee, and ESOL Coordinator Ann Costillo. She denied attempting to fraudulently inflate the number to gain or maintain resources allocated by the District, but she knew there was a difference in the numbers based on a September report from Dr. Carden. She also knew that, if the teachers followed her instructions regarding how to count students, the "actual" number of 1214 from TERMS, written in by Dr. Carden, had to be incorrect. TERMS data also was uploaded to another program called Grade-Quick. When it was time to give grades at the end of nine weeks, Ms. Jones no longer had the ability to alter the rosters and teachers were required to give a grade to each student on their roster. David Shore was the Grade-Quick technical support person at Independence. At the suggestion of Dr. Johnson, he sought advice from the District's technical support person, Bruce Roland, who told him to have teachers give each no-show student a grade of "F" to avoid an error code. The uploaded grades for students who did not attend Independence, according to Mr. Roland, would be deleted from the District's mainframe. Fearing other consequences of giving "Fs," including the possibility of generating letters to parents whose children did not attend Independence, and doubting Mr. Shore's advice because he was relatively new in his position, some teachers refused to give "Fs" to no-shows. After discussions with Dr. Johnson, Mr. Shore instructed teachers to give a grade of "C" instead and to be sure also to give a conduct grade. One teacher apparently found a way to give a conduct grade, but no letter grade, to students who were not enrolled in her class and to somehow avoid a computer error code. Some time during the fall semester, anonymous complaints concerning the enrollment at Independence were made to the State Auditor General's Office, who referred the matter to an auditor in the District's office. In December 2007, the audit confirmed that the count at Independence was incorrect largely because no-shows and withdrawals were not withdrawn timely from the computer in TERMS before the District's initial count on August 27, 2007; before the District's eleven-day count on September 7, 2007; nor before Dr. Johnson twice verified the accuracy of the FTE count in October 2007. Dr. Johnson made no effort to make corrections, after she admittedly was aware of the errors in October, November, and December. Dr. Johnson blamed teachers who were unprofessional, racist, and disgruntled over her more strict adherence to the attendance rules for teacher planning and professional development days, and over proposed spending of A-plus money. She testified that they deliberately failed to bubble no-shows as absentees. That assertion contradicts the testimony of her witness that the proper procedure was followed by teachers who drew lines through the names of no-shows rather than bubbling them as absent. It also contradicts the instructions she gave in a memorandum to teachers, on October 5, 2007, telling them to write codes next to students' names on their rosters, NS for no- show, WD for withdrawn - If a student was present at least one day..., T for transfer, and A for add. Her memorandum instructs teachers to give the information to Ms. Jones on October 11, 2007. Ms. Jones said she did look at rosters for FTE reporting and she did make corrections. She too says her count was accurate at the time unless teachers withheld information. The teachers' rosters were maintained and, from a review of the class rosters, the auditor concluded that the error was made in not correcting TERMS to comply with teachers' reports. Dr. Johnson also blamed her supervisor, Marisol Ferrer, for sending a less experienced manager, Joe Patton, to attend a meeting, on October 11, 2007, with her of the Employee Building Council, a group that included some teachers who were antagonistic towards Dr. Johnson. It is true that only later did Mr. Patton recall that, after the meeting and after Dr. Johnson left, some of teachers told him there were problems with the student count at Independence. At the time, however, Mr. Patton did not tell Ms. Ferrer or Dr. Johnson about the comments. Dr. Johnson testified that, had she been told after that meeting on October 11th about the problems, she could have corrected the numbers before she submitted her verification of accuracy. She did know that Dr. Carden showed her two sets of numbers on September 7, 2007. Although she testified that she believed the fluctuations were normal because students come and go during the day for doctor's appointments or for other reasons, Dr. Johnson took no further steps to determine if that was in fact the cause of the discrepancy. After Dr. Johnson and Dr. Carden instructed Ms. Jones to begin making withdrawals after the October FTE report, some of the withdrawals were backdated showing the no-show students' withdrawal dates as the first day of school, August 22, 2007. The District submitted corrections to DOE before the deadline for incurring penalties, ultimately reducing the FTE count at Independence by 23 students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order suspending Respondent for twenty days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick W. Ford, Esquire 2801 PGA Boulevard, Suite 110 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Sonia Elizabeth Hill-Howard, Esquire Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether there exists "just cause" within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to terminate the professional services contract between the School Board of Gadsden County, Florida, and John C. Buckley. The School Board seeks such a termination on the basis of allegations that John C. Buckley engaged in various forms of inappropriate conduct during the course of a science fair trip. Briefly summarized, the allegations are that John C. Buckley (a) permitted students to smoke cigarettes, (b) purchased alcoholic beverages in the presence of a student, (c) consumed alcoholic beverages in the presence of students, (d) provided alcoholic beverages to students and permitted them to consume such beverages, and (e) inappropriately touched one or more female students. At the hearing, the parties presented the testimony of several witnesses, including the testimony of Respondent. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings was filed and all parties thereafter filed timely proposed recommended orders. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. All findings of fact prepared by the parties are specifically addressed in the appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and the admissions of the Respondent, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material, the Respondent, John C. Buckley, was employed as a science teacher at the James A. Shanks High School in Gadsden County, Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was employed under a professional service contract as defined in Section 231.36(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987). The Respondent accompanied a group of Gadsden County high school students to Jacksonville to attend a science fair on April 13, 1988, through April 16, 1988. There were three other adults present during the trip; Oscar Rogers, a school bus driver employed by the Gadsden County School Board, Cynthia B. Clark, a science teacher from Carter Parramore Middle School, and Betty Williams, a chaperon. On the way to Jacksonville, the following three female students rode with the Respondent in his personal car: Ginger Godwin (10th grade), Twanna Scott (12th grade), and Yvonne Dunson (12th grade). The other students and adults rode in a school bus. During the drive to Jacksonville, two of the students in Respondent's car were smoking cigarettes. The Respondent knew these two students intended to smoke in his car and he did not prohibit either student from smoking in his car. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent drove in his car to a liquor store in Jacksonville, where he purchased some beer, some bottled wine coolers, and a small bottle of bourbon. Twanna Scott, a student, rode in Respondent's car to and from the liquor store, but she did not get out of the car when the Respondent went into the liquor store. During the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent consumed several beers, probably three or four. Some of the Respondent's consumption of beer took place in the presence of some of the students, specifically at a time when the students and the adults on the trip were eating pizza for their evening meal. The Respondent did not, on April 13, 1988, or any other time, provide any alcoholic beverages to any of the students, nor did he permit any of the students to consume alcohol. Later, on the evening of April 13, 1988, the Respondent entered the motel room in which Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, Yvonne Dunson, and Precious Anderson were staying. At the time the Respondent entered the room, Godwin, Scott, and Dunson, and several other people were also in the room. During the time the Respondent was in the room a door that connected to the next room was open. The next room was the room in which Cynthia B. Clark, a teacher, was staying with two other female students. While the Respondent was in the room, Twanna Scott complained of a stiff back and the Respondent sat on the edge of the bed and gave Twanna Scott a brief back rub. At the time of the back rub, the only other people in the room were Ginger Godwin and Yvonne Dunson. Following the back rub, the Respondent left the room. The Respondent did not touch any part of Twanna Scott's body other than her back. The Respondent did not touch either of the other female students who were in the room. On the evening of April 14, 1988, while the Respondent was away from the motel with some of the students, Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson told Cynthia B. Clark, one of the teachers, that they wanted to spend some time watching television in the motel room of some insurance salesmen they had recently met at the motel. Mrs. Clark agreed to let them do so, subject to some ground rules which included: the door to the salesmen's motel room had to remain open, the curtains had to remain open, and the girls had to check with Mrs. Clark every 30 minutes or so. At about 9:45 p.m. during the evening of April 14, 1988, Mrs. Clark walked by the salesmen's room and observed Ginger Godwin drinking a beer. Mrs. Clark told Ginger Godwin that she did not approve of such conduct and Ginger Godwin acted indifferent to the disapproval. Mrs. Clark told the girls that they needed to be back in their own rooms by 10:30 p.m. Sometime between 10:30 and 10:45 p.m., Mrs. Clark returned to the salesmen's room and tried to get the three girls to return to their own room. They essentially ignored her and remained in the salesmen's room. The Respondent returned to the motel sometime shortly after 11:00 p.m., at which time Mrs. Clark told him about the three girls in the insurance salesmen's room. Mrs. Clark and the Respondent then went to the salesmen's room and the Respondent told the girls they had to return to their own room. After some argument, the three girls eventually complied. Later in the evening the salesmen were down tapping on the window of the girls' motel room and the girls were talking to the salesmen through an open window. When this was brought to the Respondent's attention, he went to the girls' room, told them they should go to bed and tried to get the salesmen to leave. The three girls and the insurance salesmen all rebuffed the Respondent's efforts, and the Respondent ultimately had to call the motel security guard. At about that time, Ginger Godwin got into a heated argument with the Respondent, during the course of which there was some yelling and shouting back and forth. Apparently there were further heated arguments the next day about the salesmen. At some point in the arguments, Ginger Godwin threatened to retaliate against the Respondent as a result of his interference with the relationship between the three girls and the insurance salesmen. The threats made to the Respondent included statements such as, "I know how to get you," "I'm going to take care of your job Monday," and "I'll get even with you and I'll take care of you Monday when I get back." Upon returning home, Ginger Godwin, Yvonne Dunson, and Twanna Scott reported to school authorities that the Respondent had engaged in improper conduct during the science fair trip. They accused the Respondent of, among other things, improper sexual touching of Dunson and Scott. The allegations of improper sexual touching were false. School rules prohibit the use of tobacco substances at school campuses, activities, or field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on School Board premises, at school activities, and on school field trips. School rules prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages by teachers in the presence of students, during school field trips. When supervising field trips, teachers have 24-hour supervisory responsibility over the students on the field trip. The Respondent had been previously warned to curtail his smoking in front of students by Janey DuPont, an Administrator employed by the Petitioner. Respondent had also been specifically warned by Janey DuPont not to consume alcoholic beverages in the presence of students. The Respondent knew or should have known that he was not supposed to be drinking alcoholic beverages in the presence of students under his supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the administrative charges against the Respondent Buckley be dismissed and that the Respondent be reinstated as a professional service contract teacher with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 1988. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are my specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties to this case. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of procedural details. (Findings have been made incorporating the substance of the conduct admitted by the Respondent.) Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17; Accepted. Paragraphs 18 and 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Covered in preliminary statement. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Paragraphs 30 and 31: Rejected because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Specifically, there is no persuasive evidence that the Respondent made several attempts to bite Twanna Scott on her ear. Ms. Scott's testimony to that effort is unconvincing. The Respondent's denial is accepted. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. I reject as unworthy of belief the testimony that the Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to three students. I accept the Respondent's denial that he provided alcoholic beverages to any student. Paragraph 36: Rejected as irrelevant because the Respondent has not been charged with this conduct and, in any event, there is no evidence that Respondent consumed sufficient alcohol to impair his ability to drive safely. Paragraph 37: First fourteen words rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; I have rejected the testimony that Respondent provided alcoholic beverages to any students. Next seven words rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary because there has been no showing that the Respondent consumed sufficient alcoholic beverages to impair his judgment. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 38: First sentence rejected as vague and inaccurate; the subject student was wearing a robe and was on the bed watching television. Second sentence accepted in substance with a few clarifying details. Paragraphs 39, 40, and 41: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. In view of all the circumstances, the Respondent's denials and the Respondent's version of what occurred is more believable than the testimony of Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin. Yvonne Dunson, Twanna Scott, and Ginger Godwin are not credible witnesses. Paragraph 42: Rejected as inaccurate; the girls made a report when they returned, but it was a false report. Findings proposed by the Respondent Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 7 and 8: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the subject matter of these paragraphs is irrelevant because in the hand holding in the car is not the "inappropriate" touching with which the Respondent has been charged. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, and 14: I have not made any findings on the subject matter addressed by these paragraphs because there is no clear and convincing evidence that any inappropriate touching of female students occurred on this occasion and, absent any inappropriate touching, the proposed details are subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17 and 18: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. On this subject, I have found that the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the Respondent's denial. Paragraph 19: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22: Rejected as constituting summaries of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. (The summarized testimony has not been credited.) Paragraph 23: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence; I seriously doubt that Ginger Godwin told the other two girls anything about any "incidents" on Wednesday night. I believe the three girls (Ginger Godwin, Twanna Scott, and Yvonne Dunson) fabricated their stories at a later date. Paragraph 24: Rejected as constituting a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. I have, however, made findings of fact consistent with the Respondent's version of this incident. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE RUDEN, BARNETT, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. 101 NORTH MONROE STREET MONROE-PARK TOWER, SUITE 1010 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 PHILIP J. PADOVANO, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 873 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 ROBERT H. BRYANT SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SCHOOL BOARD OF GADSDEN COUNTY POST OFFICE BOX 818 QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue The issue here is whether the Superintendent has shown "good and sufficient reasons" for recommending that Mr. Udell be returned to annual contract status as a teacher employed by the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact For fourteen years, Mr. Udell has been employed by the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher. He is presently assigned as an auto-mechanics instructor at Hamilton High School. He has held a continuing contract for the last seven years. The principal of Hamilton High School has been Mr. Maurice Hammond for the last two years. It appears that he is less indulgent of rule violations than was the former school principal, Mr. William Edwards. Mr. Hammond has cracked down on activities such as student card playing which at one time were tolerated by the former administration. This has been at least a partial cause of friction between the old teachers like Mr. Udell and the new principal. It is the school policy that if a student is absent for more than nine days in a nine-week grading period, he will receive a sixty-five or lower grade for that period. With respect to the grade of Tim Holland, a student of Mr. Udell's for the 1979-1980 school year, Mr. Udell did not follow that policy. The policy was known to him through the teachers' handbook which he received at the beginning at the school year. In Mr. Hammond's opinion, Tim Holland would not have graduated if it has not been for Mr. Udell's violation of the nine-day rule. Tim Holland missed a total of seventy-five days of the 1979-1980 academic year. According to Hamilton High School policy, each student must receive nine grades during each nine-week grading period. Mr. Udell has not complied with that policy. During the last complete school year, his students received on the average only three grades. Hamilton High School students who are seniors and have a class grade average of ninety-five or above are exempt from quarter examinations. During the 1979-1980 year, on at least one occasion, Mr. Udell exempted from quarter exams several senior students who had less that a ninety-five average. The teachers of Hamilton High School compute the grades for their assigned students. In the 1979-1980 year, Mr. Udell had one of his students compute grades for him. The result was numerous computation errors, all in favor of the students. For instance, Leonard Phillips had a seventy-four for the first grading period and an eighty for the second period yet he received an average grade of eighty for the whole semester. Jack Alford received a sixty the first period, a sixty-four for the second period and an average of seventy for the semester. For the first semester of 1979-1980 alone, at least sixteen of Mr. Udell's forty-nine students received incorrect grades. Prior to Mr. Hammond's administration at Hamilton High School, there were occasions when students were allowed to play cards during class periods. On April 2, 1979, during a visit to Mr. Udell's classroom, Mr. Hammond observed numerous students playing cards in the third and fourth periods. Halter in the afternoon when the principal spoke with Mr. Udell about the indent, he responded that card playing occurred in other parts of the campus and "the best thing to do was to give me that oil [needed to operate an engine]." This response is typical of Mr. Udell's attitude when deficiencies in his teaching have been pointed out to him. He attempts to rationalize them by shifting repairability onto others. He explained his grading errors by complaining about not having a student assistant or a planning period; yet, with only three grades per student for the whole year, it would take little time for him to accurately compute the grades himself. In one instance, on January 14, 1980, Mr. Udell left an inadequate lessor plan for a substitute teacher. The plan which was for three classes for two periods stated in its entirety (spelling etc. as on original): 1-14-80 Auto Class 1-2 P. Class Basic Tune-up on six cyl. engine Practice on training unit that is on roll cabinit tools are in top drawer in roll cabinit Check training unit with sun scope This is for all classes one group work on engine one on training unit, then change over. Udell A 30-gallon drum of cleaning solvent was sent to Mr. Udell's auto mechanic shop without a purchase order being first submitted. This is contrary to the purchase procedure established at Hamilton High School. It resulted, however, because the salesman sent the solvent before he had Mr. Udell's approval. Mr. Udell was therefore not at fault for there not being a purchase order prior to the delivery of the goods. Evidence was presented which shows that Mr. Udell adequately handles many of the instructional aspects of his teaching responsibilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida, enter a final order pursuant to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, returning Mr. Lawrence Udell to an annual contract of employment as a member of the instructional staff, effective from the beginning of the 1980-1981 school year. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 7th day of January 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January 1981.
