The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 30, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Veita Jackson-Carter is the assistant principal at Eastside High School (Eastside) which is located in Gainesville, Florida, and is part of the Alachua County School District (school district). In the summer of 2002, Petitioner came to Eastside to talk to Ms. Jackson-Carter about employment there. At that initial meeting, Petitioner and Ms. Jackson-Carter discussed instructional positions at Eastside. While Petitioner gave a resume to Ms. Jackson-Carter, Ms. Jackson-Carter informed Petitioner that he needed to submit an employment application with the school district's personnel office. Ms. Jackson-Carter was very interested in hiring Petitioner. However, she explained to Petitioner that while the individual schools make recommendations regarding hiring, the school district actually hires applicants. Petitioner submitted a completed Application for Instructional Position on June 28, 2002, to the school district.2/ Because of her interest in hiring Petitioner, Ms. Jackson-Carter checked with someone in the school district's personnel office on the status of his application for an instructional position. She learned that there was a problem with his obtaining a teaching certificate. During this same period of time, Petitioner met with Marcia Shelton. At that time, Ms. Shelton was a certification specialist with the school district's department of personnel services. She worked with applicants in assisting them in determining eligibility for certification. However, neither she, nor anyone who works for the school district, has the authority to issue teaching certificates or statements of eligibility for teaching certificates as only the Florida Department of Education has the authority to do that. At the initial meeting between Petitioner and Ms. Shelton, Petitioner informed Ms. Shelton that a particular school was interested in hiring him for an instructional position. She began the process of assisting him to determine his eligibility for certification. Petitioner's application contained his educational achievements. He earned a bachelor's degree from Kentucky State University with a major in criminal justice and a minor in political science, and a master's degree with a major in human resource management and a minor in the area of public administration. Ms. Shelton asked for and received copies of Petitioner's academic transcripts. Ms. Shelton's review of the transcripts revealed that Petitioner had a cumulative undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 2.322. She informed Petitioner that the minimum GPA required for issuance of an initial teaching certificate was 2.5 and that he would not be eligible for certification because the GPA for the courses needed for certification were not high enough. While Petitioner had the course work to meet specialization requirements for political science, the grades were not what was required. In an effort to help Petitioner, Ms. Shelton contacted Jean Morgan with the Bureau of Educator Certification of the Florida Department of Education (Department), to inquire as to whether public administration courses Petitioner had taken could be counted toward those required for certification in political science or social science. Petitioner's own exhibits establish that Ms. Shelton made numerous attempts to assist Petitioner by making repeated inquiries in August 2002 to Ms. Morgan and Ms. Morgan's supervisor, Kathy Hebda, in an effort to find a way for Petitioner to meet the Department's requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts included faxing course descriptions to the Department for evaluation in an effort to satisfy the Department's certification requirements. Ms. Shelton's efforts, however, on Petitioner's behalf were unsuccessful. That is, she learned from both Ms. Morgan and Ms. Hebda that the Department would not accept the public administration courses to bring up Petitioner's GPA in political science. On August 5, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. She informed him of some career service positions at Eastside for which he could apply. Petitioner completed and filed a Career Service Application Form dated August 13, 2002, with Respondent. There is an inconsistency in Petitioner's answers to a question regarding criminal background on each application for employment with Respondent. Each application contains a question regarding whether the applicant had ever been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to offenses listed in three categories. On the Application for Instructional Position, Petitioner checked "no" for all three categories: felony, first degree misdemeanor, and second degree misdemeanor involving a minor child or involving violence. He then answered "yes" to the question, "Have you ever been judicially determined to have committed abuse or neglect against a child." The application instructs the applicant that if any question was answered yes, to explain and attach all pertinent documents. Despite having answered yes to one question, Petitioner wrote "N/A" in the blank provided. However, on the Career Service Application Form, he answered "yes" to the category generally entitled "misdemeanor." The application instructs the applicant that if the answer to any of the criminal background questions was "yes," that the applicant must list charge(s) and disposition. In the blank provided to list charge(s) and disposition, Petitioner put "N/A" in the blank provided, despite having answered "yes" to the category entitled "misdemeanor." The application also instructs the applicant to attach all pertinent documents. On or about August 16, 2002, Petitioner again went to Eastside to meet with Ms. Jackson-Carter. He inquired of Ms. Jackson-Carter when he was to report to work. Ms. Jackson- Carter inquired of Petitioner if the school district had offered him a position as she was not aware of any position having been offered to him. The last correspondence in the record from Ms. Shelton to the Department is dated August 29, 2002, in which she notes that the Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Educator Certification was personally reviewing Petitioner's documents. She also noted that "he still has not applied to DOE." In Ms. Shelton's and Dr. Pratt's experience, it is unusual for the bureau chief to become personally involved in such a review. Ms. Shelton received a call from Ms. Hebda and the bureau chief during which Ms. Shelton learned that the bureau chief personally was going to accept the course work to enable Petitioner to meet specialization requirements for a temporary certificate in political science. Ms. Shelton did not have the authority to make that determination that was ultimately made by the bureau chief of the Bureau of Educator Certification. On August 23, 2002, the school district sent a letter to Petitioner informing him that his application for substitute teaching had been approved for the 2002-2003 school year. The letter informed him about a mandatory new employee orientation. It also specified that state law requires that all new employees be fingerprinted. The letter was signed by Josephine Brown, Coordinator, Personnel Services. Being a substitute teacher requires direct contact with students. The position of substitute teacher is not a permanent position with the school district. It is a conditional offer pending cleared fingerprint processing. Dr. Leila Pratt was Director of Personnel Services for the Alachua County School Board in August 2002. She was Ms. Shelton's and Ms. Brown's supervisor. She has since retired. On August 27, 2002, Dr. Pratt attended the criminal history review committee meeting during which Mr. Price was discussed. Of particular concern to Dr. Pratt were certain entries on Mr. Price's criminal history record received from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation which Ms. Pratt believed reflected violent behavior. She was concerned that these offenses would make Petitioner ineligible for employment because of statutory and school district policy requirements. She was also concerned about the inconsistencies between the answers provided on the two applications. A Criminal Records form was completed regarding Petitioner as a result of the committee meeting which included the following notations: "criminal possession of handgun (87); possession of handgun (93); DUI & suspended license (2000); violation of KY charges (01). Falsification of application." The recommendation of the committee was termination. The school board issued a Separation of Service form to Petitioner dated and signed by Petitioner and Dr. Pratt August 28, 2002. The form identifies the reason for separation as "background check." Petitioner requested and was given the opportunity to explain his criminal history. On August 29, 2002, he went to Dr. Pratt's office to discuss his criminal background and to provide Dr. Pratt with pertinent documentation. However, the information which Petitioner provided to Dr. Pratt did not satisfy her concerns. On August 29, 2002, Dr. Pratt wrote a letter to Petitioner which stated as follows: Dear Mr. Price: In response to the three charges: criminal possession of a weapon, menacing and assault filed in August 1987, your documentation does not indicate your charges were dropped to a misdemeanor. It indicates that you pled guilty and was sentenced to thirty (30) days confinement. [sic] In response to your charge filed on April 6, 1989 for trespassing on property after a warning, you provided no official documentation from the court records. In response to the charge filed on November 12, 1993 for possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, your documentation does not officially state that your charges were dismissed or that the charges were dropped. We are unable to determine what is meant by the statement, "lack of probable cause" on the paperwork you submitted. In response to the charge filed on April 20, 2000 for DUI and suspended license, your documentation stated the case was dismissed, but there was probable cause for the arrest and your case was remanded back to another court for the disposition. You submitted no documentation as to the final disposition. A restraining protection order was issued from 2000 to 2003 for domestic battery. No official court documentation regarding this charge has been provided. In addition to the information you submitted being incomplete, one of the documents you presented was not an official court document, which is what we requested, official court records. To provide further consideration to your request for employment, official court documents will need to be provided for all of the charges that have been filed. Until this information is received and reviewed, you are not eligible to work for the School Board of Alachua County. According to Ms. Price, official court documents are required of everyone under these circumstances. Even if the court documents had been official, Dr. Pratt's concerns would have remained because of the violent nature of some of the offenses in the documents and the statutory and school district policy requirements. Petitioner did not submit further documentation to Respondent clarifying his criminal history. Petitioner completed an Application for Florida Educator Certificate which was mailed to the Department on August 30, 2002. The Department issued an Official Statement of Status of Eligibility to Petitioner dated May 28, 2003, which explained to Petitioner what was required of him to get a temporary certificate and a professional certificate covering political science for grades 6 through 12. The Official Statement of Status of Eligibility also informs Petitioner that issuance of a certificate will be contingent upon a review of any criminal offense as a result of fingerprint processing. Dr. Pratt characterized Ms. Shelton's efforts on Petitioner's behalf as going "beyond the call of duty." She believes that her entire staff acted appropriately in dealing with Petitioner. Petitioner is an African-American male. At the time of the adverse employment action giving rise to this proceeding, Petitioner was 42 years old. Ms. Jackson-Carter and Dr. Pratt are African-American females. Ms. Shelton is a white female. Beyond Petitioner's allegation of discrimination, Petitioner presented no evidence that his race, sex, or age played any role in any action taken by Respondent regarding Petitioner's eligibility for teacher certification or its decision to terminate his probationary employment as a substitute teacher. The Department's ultimate acceptance of coursework and issuance of a Statement of Status of Eligibility some eight months after the adverse employment action taken by Respondent does not establish that Respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 19th day of December, 2003.
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 Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the competent substantial evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Broward County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Broward County pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by the District as a physical education teacher since 2004. His last teaching assignment was as a physical education teacher at Crystal Lakes Middle School in Pompano Beach, Florida. Administrative Charges The alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred on or about May 18, 2018. The Administrative Complaint alleges that on that day, Respondent did not fully cover his early morning duty in the school cafeteria, did not fully attend his assigned homeroom, and did not attend his first period class, thereby leaving his students unsupervised for part of those periods; and reported to work under the influence of controlled substances——specifically, alcohol and cocaine. As a result of this alleged conduct, Petitioner has charged Respondent, in the Administrative Complaint, with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), (3), (4), and (5), and specified provisions of school board policies 2400, 4008, and 4.9, discussed in greater detail below. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding On the morning of May 18, 2018, Respondent reported to work under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, both of which are defined as "controlled substances" by school board policy. As a result, Respondent did not fully cover his early morning cafeteria duty, did not fully attend his assigned homeroom, and did not attend his first period class. A fellow physical education teacher, Cindi Ancona, was forced to cover Respondent's first period class. During the portions of the periods in which Respondent was not present in his classroom and in which Ancona was not covering his class, his students were left unsupervised. Ancona saw Respondent at the beginning of second period. When she questioned Respondent regarding his whereabouts during first period, she noticed that he appeared confused and off— balance and that his eyes were glassy, so she sent a text message to Sabine Phillips, the Principal at Crystal Lake Middle School, regarding Respondent's demeanor and appearance. Phillips and Assistant Principal Ben Reeves responded to Ancona's text message. Reeves entered the boys' locker room and found Respondent lying down in his office outside of the locker room. Phillips then entered the locker room and told Respondent that he needed to go to the office with her and Reeves. In the course of questioning Respondent about where he had been during his first period class, Phillips surmised, and informed Respondent that she had reasonable suspicion, that he was under the influence of controlled substances. Phillips contacted the District's Special Investigative Unit to request that Respondent be subjected to testing to determine whether he was under the influence of controlled substances. Phillips followed the designated procedures, which entailed completing and transmitting a completed Incident Report Form to the designated District personnel. The Risk Management Department determined that the requested testing was warranted and transmitted an Anti—Drug Program Passport to Phillips, who delivered it to Respondent. The Anti—Drug Passport informed Respondent that he would be subjected to controlled substances testing, and that the testing would be performed at Crystal Lakes Middle School. Respondent consented to the drug and alcohol testing. The Risk Management Department sent an employee health testing collector to Crystal Lake Middle School, where she conducted a breath alcohol and urine test on Respondent. The breath alcohol testing indicated that Respondent had blood alcohol levels of .101 and .095, both of which exceed the blood alcohol level of .04 that Petitioner has adopted as the threshold for being under the influence of alcohol. Petitioner's third—party contractor confirmed that Respondent had a blood alcohol level of .095 at the time he was tested. Julianne Gilmore, an environmental health testing specialist with the District's Risk Management Department, contacted Phillips and Respondent, notifying them both that Respondent was being placed on Administrative Reassignment and was to remain at home——i.e., not report to work——pending the result of the drug testing. This informal contact was followed by a letter dated May 21, 2018, confirming that Respondent had been placed on Administrative Reassignment and directing him to stay home pending further notice.1/ Gilmore also advised Respondent of the availability of the District's Employee Assistance Program ("EAP"), participation in which was not mandatory.2/ The results of Respondent's drug test were received by the Risk Management Department on or about June 1, 2018. Respondent tested positive for cocaine. Respondent does not dispute that he was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine while at school on May 18, 2018, and also does not dispute accuracy of the results of the blood alcohol and drug tests. Upon receiving the results of Respondent's drug test, it was determined3/ that Respondent's employment with the District should be terminated, notwithstanding that the next step in sequential progressive disciplinary process ordinarily would be suspension. A significant consideration in this decision was that Respondent had left his students unsupervised, placing their safety at risk. No evidence was presented that the students in Respondent's class were actually physically or psychologically injured or harmed as a result of Respondent being absent from his classroom on May 18, 2018. Prior Discipline Petitioner has a policy (Policy 4.9, discussed below) of imposing discipline in a progressive manner, which means that discipline typically is imposed in sequential steps in order to afford the employee the opportunity to correct his/her conduct and performance before he/she is suspended or terminated. The progressive discipline policy authorizes sequential disciplinary steps to be skipped for sufficiently severe misconduct. Petitioner previously has disciplined Respondent. On April 21, 2016, Petitioner issued a Summary of Conference memo, memorializing a conference in which Respondent was verbally admonished for having briefly left the students in his class unattended while he took an injured student to the physical education office to tend to his injury, during which time some of the students physically assaulted other students in the class. On February 10, 2017, Petitioner issued a Verbal Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for being tardy to, and absent from, work without following the proper protocol for entering an absence. On December 1, 2017, Petitioner issued a Written Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for continuing to be tardy to, and absent from, work without following the proper protocol for entering an absence. On February 14, 2018, Petitioner issued another Written Reprimand to Respondent, reprimanding him for consistently failing to follow absence/tardy—reporting procedures, resulting in his students being left unsupervised. He was informed that if he again failed to adhere to the appropriate procedure, he would be subject to further discipline, including possible termination of his employment. Other Key Considerations in this Proceeding Respondent was forthright in admitting that he suffers from a substance abuse problem. In 2016, Respondent sought help for his substance abuse issue through the District's EAP program at Phillips' suggestion, but did not complete the program——in part because he did not find its methods helpful in dealing with his problem, and in part because he believed that he could overcome his problem on his own as he always had done in his life. Respondent has come to realize that he cannot overcome his substance abuse problem on his own and that there is no shame in asking others for help in dealing with his problem. To that end, Respondent participated in, and has completed, the Evolution substance abuse program, which consisted of counseling sessions three to four days a week, for a three—to— four—month period, and attending therapy classes and meetings each week. As a condition of participation in Evolution, Respondent was subject to random substance abuse testing. He did not test positive for alcohol or drug use during his participation in the program. The spiritual counseling and substance abuse trigger counseling that Respondent received in the Evolution program have resonated with him and have helped him successfully address his substance abuse problem.4/ In order to avoid backsliding, Respondent remains in weekly contact with one of his therapists at Evolution, and attends meetings three to four times a week, to place himself in an environment that enables and fosters his success in fighting his substance abuse problem. Since commencing Evolution, Respondent has not engaged in alcohol or drug use. Respondent expressed remorse at his behavior and poor judgment at having reported to work under the influence of controlled substances on May 18, 2018. He testified that he did so because he previously had been reprimanded for being absent, and was concerned about missing more school. He recognized that his choice to go to school in that condition was "bad thinking at the time." Respondent credibly testified that he greatly enjoys teaching and that he chose teaching as a career because he loves working with kids, relates well to them, and believes he can help them. His colleague, Tyrell Dozier, testified that Respondent gets along well with his students and is a caring, effective teacher. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated State Department of Education rules and specified school board policies. Specifically, Petitioner has charged Respondent, pursuant to rule 6A—5.056, with misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with violating school board policies 2400(1) and (3); 4008 B.1., 3., and 8. and certain provisions of Policy 4.9. Whether the charged offenses constitute violations of the applicable rules and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1985)(whether there was a deviation from the standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but instead is an ultimate fact); McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether a particular action constitutes a violation of a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact). Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent violated some, but not all, of the rules and school board policies charged in the Administrative Complaint. By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent committed misconduct in office under rule 6A—5.056(2), which includes violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A— 10.081(2)(a), by having left his students unsupervised. By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting incompetency under rule 6A—5.056(3). By engaging in the conduct addressed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting gross insubordination under rule 6A—5.056(4). By engaging in the conduct discussed above, Respondent engaged in conduct constituting willful neglect of duty under rule 6A—5.056(5). Respondent violated Policy 2400(1) by reporting to work while under the influence of controlled substances. However, no evidence was presented that Respondent was in possession of, or used, a controlled substance while on school board property or at a school—sponsored activity. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent consumed alcohol and used cocaine in a social setting the night before he reported to school on May 18, 2018. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Policy 2400(3), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. Policy 4008, subsections (B)1. and 8., requires school board employees to comply with State Board of Education rules and school board policies. As discussed above, the evidence shows that Respondent violated rule 6A—5.056(2), (3), (4), and (5), and rule 6A—10.081(2)(a). In violating these rules, Respondent violated Policy 4008, subsections (B)1. and 8. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Policy 4008B, subsection 3., as charged in the Administrative Complaint. This policy imposes on instructional personnel the duty to "Infuse in the classroom, the District's adopted Character Education Traits of Respect, Honesty, Kindness, Self—control, Tolerance, Cooperation, Responsibility and Citizenship." While Respondent's conduct in reporting to school under the influence of controlled substances on May 18, 2018, may not have constituted self—control or respect for his duties as a teacher on that specific day, no evidence was presented regarding Respondent's behavior in the classroom—— whether on that day or on any other day. To the contrary, as discussed above, the evidence established that Respondent is a caring and effective teacher in dealing with his students. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent did not violate Policy 4008, subsection B.3. The evidence establishes that Respondent violated Policy 4008(C), which requires instructional personnel to be on duty for a minimum of 7.5 hours on an instructional day. However, the evidence does not establish that Respondent violated the provision in Policy 4008, "Miscellaneous" section, which states that "all members of the instructional staff shall be expected to teach a full schedule of classes, unless prior approval from the area superintendent or superintendent is obtained." Policy 4008 establishes the overarching responsibilities and duties of Principals and instructional personnel in the context of performing their employment contracts. In this context, the "full schedule of classes" provision refers to a teacher's instructional schedule assignment for the school year rather than a specific per—hour requirement. In fact, to read this provision as urged in the Administrative Complaint would render it redundant to the statement (also in the "Miscellaneous" section) that "instructional personnel must be on duty a minimum of seven and one—half hours (7 1/2) hours daily. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with having violated the District's progressive discipline policy, Policy 4.9. As more fully discussed below, it is found that Respondent that did not violate this policy. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as an ultimate fact, that although Respondent violated the rule and many of the school board policies charged in the Administrative Complaint, under the progressive discipline policy set forth in Policy 4.9, the appropriate penalty that should be imposed on Respondent in this case is suspension without pay for the entire period during which he has been reassigned from the classroom. Additionally, Respondent should be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, at his personal expense, as a condition of his continued employment by Petitioner.5/ This penalty is appropriate based on the fact that Respondent has not previously been subject to suspension without pay under the progressive discipline policy, and takes into account several relevant considerations: specifically, that Respondent has a substance abuse problem for which he actively sought——and finally has been able to obtain——real, effective help in overcoming; that he has an approximately 14—year employment history with Petitioner that only, in the last two years, entailed discipline as the result of conduct that was caused by his substance abuse problem; that he is remorseful, understands that he made poor choices, and has obtained the counseling and therapy he needs in order to correct his performance problems through overcoming his substance abuse problem; that he is a caring and effective teacher who loves children and enjoys his teaching job; and, importantly, that no students were injured or otherwise harmed by Respondent's conduct on May 18, 2018. This penalty also is sufficiently severe to deter Respondent from committing future violations of rules and school board policies, and sends the message that this is truly his last chance.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Douglas G. Griffin, Esquire Broward County School Board Office of the General Counsel 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 For Respondent: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order suspending Respondent from his teaching position without pay commencing on the date on which he was reassigned from the classroom; reinstating Respondent to his teaching position; and requiring Respondent to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, at his personal expense, as a condition of his continued employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 17th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent should be assigned to J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Anya Cooper and Aaron Brumm and had admitted Exhibits P-1 (two pages of subpoena), P-2 (case management form 676566), P-3 (composite of Student Observation 1/12/87), P-4 (Composite Student Case Management Referral Forms), P-5 (Second Report for School Year 1986-1987), P-6 (Composite of Student Academic and Behavioral Reports), and P-7 (Individualized Education Program, IEP). Respondent presented the oral testimony of Fred Sage and had admitted R-1 (Computer printout), R-2 (Computer printout), R-3 (Child Study Team Conference Notes), and R-4 (composite of report card with progress notes of Grace Baptist Academy). Joint Exhibit A (Multi- Disciplinary Team Report) was also admitted. Due to the failure of Bonnie Edison to respond to a validly served subpoena, the parties stipulated to the taking and filing of her deposition by Petitioner subsequent to July 21, 1987. Respondent's father's August 22, 1987, letter has been treated as a Motion to Strike or Amend the Edison deposition, and the Edison deposition with attached exhibits has been admitted as amended by the Order of September 10, 1987. Petitioner filed a "Memorandum of Law on Jurisdiction, Substantial Interest, and Case or Controversy," and Respondent filed a letter styled, "Request for Ruling." These documents are addressed the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's parents were notified by a letter dated January 30, 1987, that Respondent had been administratively assigned to the Dade County School Board's alternative education program at J.R.E. Lee Opportunity School. Being previously aware that the recommendation for administrative assignment had been made, Respondent's parents had formally withdrawn Respondent from the public school effective January 29, 1987, and timely petitioned for formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's parents are currently complying with State law by continuing their son in a private educational facility, however Respondent's substantial interest entitling him to a formal hearing continues to exist in that the parents desire their son to be enrolled in the regular program of the Dade County public school system and in that they propose to re-enroll him in that system if they prevail in these proceedings. At all times prior to his withdrawal from public school, Respondent was enrolled at Cutler Ridge Junior High School, located in Dade County, Florida. He attended summer school in the summer of 1986, and was 13 years old and in the seventh grade for the regular 1986-1987 school year. During the regular 1986-1987 school year, Anya Cooper was Respondent's mathematics teacher. In her class, Respondent performed his basic skill work below grade level. She described his conduct in her class as very "fidgety, constantly moving around, bothering other students, and talking and kicking purses." However, she also described the foregoing behavior as all done "in fun" and described Respondent's usual responses to admonishment as being, "Okay, Okay." Apparently she interpreted these responses to her correction as being in the nature of back-talk but admitted that following a smart retort, Respondent usually would not say more beyond "Okay" and often complied with her requests. Beginning September 22, 1986, Ms. Cooper kept a daily record of negative behaviors of Respondent. That day, Respondent was extremely talkative and refused to participate in boardwork. He also lied, saying a paper without a name on it which had received a grade of "B" was his own paper when, in fact, it had been submitted by someone else. When confronted with his lie, Respondent admitted the lie immediately. On September 24, he was too talkative and changed his seat. On September 26, he talked during a test and refused twice to take the test before actually taking it. On September 30, he chewed gum and was required to remove it. On an occasion in early October, he talked back to Ms. Cooper and was instructed not to talk in class anymore. On October 22, he threw a piece of staple which hit another student. Ms. Cooper counselled with Respondent about the danger of throwing staples, but Respondent interrupted her and refused to work. On October 23, Respondent kicked a female student, and on October 28, he put his foot on her arm. Ms. Cooper put him out of her class. There is no evidence that any student was ever injured. On October 27, Respondent refused to work and talked during the entire class period. Later that month, he threw a pen into the trash can, creating a loud noise and distraction. Nonetheless, despite the number of these incidents, Ms. Cooper only referred Respondent for discipline by the school administration one time. During summer school the previous summer, the Respondent had been referred by the coach to Assistant Principal Brumm for running around the cafeteria. Respondent was reprimanded and warned without being assigned to indoor or outdoor suspension. On July 22, 1986, also during summer school, Respondent had been referred to the office for disruptive and non-attentive behavior in one class. Assistant Principal Brumm sent Respondent home for one-half day as a disciplinary measure. By October 6, 1986, Respondent was in the Student-At-Risk-Program (SARP). This program assembles a special group of teachers within the school who are able to deal particularly effectively with disciplinary problems. The student members of the program are assigned their own counsellor and attend classes of much smaller size than do those students in the academic mainstream. The target goal of SARP is to identify students at risk for dropping out of school and modify their behavior so as to retain them in the school system. The testimony of Bonnie Edison, Respondent's seventh grade SARP life science teacher for the regular 1986-1987 school year, was submitted by after- filed deposition. Ms. Edison did not routinely refer Respondent to the administration for his discipline problems, nor did she involve the SARP counsellor. She addressed Respondent's disruptive behavior solely with SARP behavior modification techniques. In Ms. Edison's class, Respondent was "off task" and disruptive seventy to eighty percent of the time unless Ms. Edison addressed him on a one-to-one basis, or unless she included him in a group of no more than three students. Despite measurably high ability, Respondent's work effort was below standard ninety percent of the time. He consistently failed to bring proper materials to class but admitted he should do so. Ms. Edison counselled with Respondent a few minutes daily and occasionally for longer periods, sometimes with temporary success, but never with lasting success. Her greatest concern was that Respondent's need for one-on-one attention deprived her of teaching time and limited her time for other students. She also was concerned because, in their conversations, Respondent could name no rewards or goals she could integrate into her program at school. Nonetheless, noting that Respondent related better to plants than to people, and recognizing his very superior ability with horticulture, Ms. Edison involved him in independent study with plants as a reward. She also devised a reward system based upon Respondent's interest in wrestling as a contact sport, and upon his affection and respect for the wrestling coach who had previously referred Respondent for discipline. This coach helped Respondent study for his second grading period exam in Ms. Edison's class, and Respondent earned an "A" on this final exam. Between September 1986 and the end of January 1987, Respondent had a total of seven referrals to the school administration, although some referrals covered several incidents. The constant theme of the referrals of Respondent to the administration was that Respondent had the ability to learn, but insufficient self-discipline to allow him to learn. Respondent had been assigned to six days of CSI (indoor suspension) and one day of outdoor suspension. In the first grading period of the regular 1986-1987 school year, Respondent earned two F's, one D, two C's and one B. By January 29, 1987, in the second grading period, Respondent had earned two F's, two D's and two C's. In the second grading period, he had only been absent 2 or 3 times in each class except for math, in which he had 8 absences. There is no evidence that any teacher or administrator viewed these absences as excessive. On January 20, 1987, a teacher referred Respondent for disrupting other students in CSI by making squeaking sounds. Thereafter, a Child Study Team was convened. Each of Respondent' a teachers participated in a conference with Respondent's mother on January 28, 1987. The consensus of the team and teachers was that Respondent needed extremely close supervision. Each teacher consulted with Respondent's mother on this occasion. Although there is evidence of some parental contact due to previous disciplinary problems, it appears that January 28, 1987, when the alternative education program was being actively explored, was the first time the parents were made aware of the serious penalties attendant upon Respondent's grades, behavior, and absences. The probable explanation for the lack of prior communication is that Respondent never gave contact slips/reports to his parents, but it is also clear that there was little or no administrative follow-up on the written material sent home and that the parents also resented and reacted hostilely to two oral contacts by the administration. Mr. Brumm opined that all disciplinary and counselling techniques at his disposal had been tried but had proven ineffectual. It was Respondent's parents' position that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them concerning their son's disinterested and disruptive behavior; had failed to involve them early enough in disciplinary and academic correction of their son; and had failed to use corporal punishment to discipline Respondent. To buttress their assertion that the school had failed to adequately communicate with them, the parents asserted that since certain disciplinary reports/referrals had not been committed to writing or consigned to the computer prior to the administrative school assignment (January 30, 1987) or prior to the formal withdrawal of their son from the Dade County School System (January 29, 1987), there was little or no credibility in any of the disciplinary reports/referrals admitted in evidence and particularly no credibility in those reports/referrals dated February 6, 1987, and later. The failure of teachers and administrators to timely commit to writing the reports does not diminish the credibility of the oral testimony on the same facts by the teachers and Mr. Brumm. It does, however, render less credible the administration's assertion that adequate communication was made with the parents simultaneously with the alleged disciplinary actions. The parents' assertion that the school failed to use corporal punishment as an accepted disciplinary technique is ill-founded. The administration's failure to employ corporal punishment was consistent with established policy, and not demonstrated to be unreasonable. Respondent's exhibits of report cards and progress reports from the private school which he entered subsequent to withdrawal from the Dade County Public School System are irrelevant to the statutory issues discussed in the conclusions of law. They are also virtually unintelligible without any "key" by which they may be interpreted.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's continuing contract of employment as a classroom teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (School Board), is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Palm Beach County. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution. Petitioner has been authorized to act on behalf of the School Board in this proceeding. The respective duties and responsibilities of the School Board and the Superintendent are set forth in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a classroom English teacher pursuant to a continuing contract since 1965. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent taught high school English at BRCHS. On October 25, 1999, the then-serving Superintendent of Schools reassigned Respondent to an administrative position in the Division of Personnel Services, effective October 26, 1999. Respondent has not taught in the Palm Beach School District since his reassignment. The Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) is a union that represents members of the Palm Beach County School District’s instructional staff. Respondent has been a member of the CTA at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Section 231.29(1), Florida Statutes, requires each school district to establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of certain employees, including classroom teachers with continuing contracts. The Florida Department of Education (DOE) must approve each school district's personnel assessment system. The School Board has adopted a personnel assessment system, described below, that has been approved by DOE. As required by Florida law, School District administrators evaluate the work performance of teachers at least once a year. The Classroom Teachers Assessment System (CTAS), the assessment system used by the Palm Beach County School District, requires that prior to any evaluation, a qualified administrator observe the teacher’s classroom performance for a minimum of twenty minutes, recording any noted strengths and identifying weaknesses that should be remediated. An observation may be recorded in a narrative form or in a summative form. Following the observation, the administrator completes the evaluation form, which requires that the teacher be rated in 16 skill areas. The rating for each skill area is a score of two for an acceptable area or a one for an area of concern (an area of deficiency). At the beginning of every school year, teachers receive a Teacher Evaluation Handbook (Handbook) that describes the evaluation form, criteria, and rating scale that Petitioner uses to evaluate the job performance of employees with continuing contracts or professional services contracts. The evaluation form lists a total of 16 skill areas under the following headings: "Instructional Process," "Professional Proficiencies," and "Professional Responsibilities" as follows: INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS Management of Student Conduct Instructional Organization and Development Presentation of Subject Matter Communication: Verbal and Nonverbal PROFESSIONAL PROFICIENCIES Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate Demonstrates Knowledge of Subject Matter Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively Demonstrates Ability to Evaluate Instructional Needs Demonstrates Effective Written Communication Skills Develops and Maintains an Accurate Record Keeping System PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Demonstrates a Commitment to Growth Demonstrates Self Control Demonstrates Effective Working Relationship with Coworkers Demonstrates Effective Working Relationship with Parents Adheres to and Enforces School Policies Performs Duties as Assigned by the School Administration The Handbook provides criteria that explain each one of these categories on the evaluation form. Teachers who receive an unsatisfactory performance evaluation are placed on a 30-day school-site assistance plan. If the teacher’s performance has not sufficiently improved by the end of the 30 days, the teacher is thereafter placed on a 90-day district-level assistance plan. Prior to the end of the 90-day period, the teacher’s performance in the classroom is evaluated again. If that teaching performance is still rated unsatisfactory, the teacher can be recommended for dismissal. This process applies to both Professional Service Contract (PSC) teachers and Continuing Contract (CC) teachers. The CTAS has been incorporated by reference into the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the School District and the CTA. 1/ Article II, Section M of the CBA is titled Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline) and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. * * * 7. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school board rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. . . . Written Reprimand. . . . Suspension Without Pay. . . . Dismissal. . . . Diane Harris became the principal of BRCHS in August 1997, taking over for Norman Shearin. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Harris served as an administrator in the Area Office and was assigned to the instructional support team. Pursuant to her duties under the CTAS, Ms. Harris observed one of Respondent’s classes on October 23, 1997. She observed what she considered to be several areas of deficient performance. Ms. Harris subsequently met with Respondent to address these concerns and make suggestions on how he could improve his teaching performance. Respondent was not receptive to her comments. Respondent’s final evaluation for the 1997-98 school year was rated satisfactory overall. Ms. Harris testified, credibly, that she rated all the teachers that year as being satisfactory because she wanted to observe all teachers during her first year as principal so she could formulate a plan for the following year. The concerns noted during her October observation of the Respondent were never made a part of his final evaluation for 1997-98. Ms. Harris rated Respondent's performance as being satisfactory despite the fact that she was aware that Respondent’s review for the prior year (under Dr. Shearin) had been unsatisfactory. Every year, the BRCHS English Department takes students on a field trip to the Caldwell Theater to view a theatrical production. On November 4, 1998, Respondent’s first period English class was scheduled to go on that field trip. That morning, however, several of his students appeared at the school’s front office and complained to Ms. Harris that Respondent would not allow the entire class to go on the field trip because some students had thrown “spit wads” during class. Rather than punish the students who were responsible, Respondent inappropriately punished the whole class. Because half of the English Department was going on the field trip that day and half the next day (November 5, 1998), Ms. Harris arranged for Respondent’s students to go on the field trip on November 5, 1998. She was unable to meet with Respondent on November 4, 1998 because, when she went to look for him to inquire about his actions, he had already left on the bus with other students to go to the theater. When Ms. Harris was finally able to speak to Respondent either that day or the following day, Respondent accused her of preempting his absolute authority over his class. On November 6, 1998, Ms. Harris issued a memorandum to Respondent outlining her concerns about the field trip incident. In that memorandum, Ms. Harris also noted that she was concerned about the frequent number of disciplinary referrals for assistance from the deans Respondent would make on a daily basis. As a result of those concerns, Ms. Harris provided Respondent with a handout from the CTAS listing the performance criteria for Management of Student Conduct, which included implementing a discipline plan. Ms. Harris specifically directed Respondent to prepare such a written discipline plan and provide it to her by November 9, 1998. On November 17, 1998, Respondent provided to Ms. Harris a copy of a one-page typed document outlining eight rules of conduct which he handed out at the beginning of each school year to his students. On the copy provided to Ms. Harris, the Respondent noted that he also followed the student/teacher handbook. Attached to the document was a copy of a page from an outdated student/teacher handbook. On several occasions Ms. Harris informed Respondent that his discipline plan was inadequate. Thereafter, Ms. Harris consulted with Ms. Stafford, an assistant principal of BRCHS, and obtained a number of documents from the School District’s Professional Standards Office to aid Respondent in properly preparing a discipline plan. By memorandum dated December 18, 1998, Ms. Harris directed Respondent to provide her with a discipline plan by January 8, 1999. When a student is removed from a classroom as the result of misbehavior, he or she is sent to a supervised study area called the opportunity room. On November 24, 1998, Ms. Harris met with Respondent regarding the large volume of referrals he was issuing, which resulted in the students being referred to the opportunity room. At mid-year, Respondent had issued approximately 70 to 75 such referrals. By the end of the school year, Respondent had issued 146 such referrals. In addition to the number of referrals, Ms. Harris received complaints from parents that two particular students were being regularly referred to the opportunity room, that these two students received failing grades, that they were not given progress reports, and that their work was misplaced. Ms. Harris also received a complaint from a student that Respondent had sent the student to the opportunity room without giving the student a way to make up class work. Respondent requested another meeting and offered to justify the referrals he had made, but the meeting was never held. 2/ On December 4, 1998, Ms. Harris made an informal observation of Respondent’s first period class. Ms. Harris observed that the classroom setting was chaotic, students ignored Respondent, and there was no flow or continuity of instruction. All teachers are required to turn in weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, materials, assessment tools, and activities. In January 1999, Respondent turned in lesson plans for the second term of English 10 and 11. His plans for English 11 were merely a duplicate of his plans for English 10. Subsequently, Ms. Harris repeatedly instructed Respondent to turn in appropriate lesson plans for English 11. Despite those clear instructions from Ms. Harris, Respondent did not turn in appropriate lesson plans for English 11. Ms. Harris decided to give Respondent a mid-year evaluation. The evidence presented by Petitioner established that Ms. Harris was justified in determining that a mid-year evaluation was appropriate. 3/ Ms. Harris assigned Dr. Robert Murley, an assistant principal at BRCHS, to perform a summative observation of Respondent on February 2, 1999. On the day Dr. Murley observed Respondent, Respondent was approximately five minutes late to class. At one point during the observation, Dr. Murley observed that more than half the class was not engaged in learning. The students were either talking or sleeping, or staring off into space, or looking out the window. Dr. Murley further observed Respondent talking above the class rather than getting them to pay attention. Dr. Murley observed the class for over an hour in the hope that things would get better, but they did not. During the 75 minutes that Dr. Murley observed Respondent’s class, he noted 42 times where the students were engaged in misconduct, with Respondent failing to address the misconduct in 12 instances. Respondent’s lessons failed to include meaningful learning and motivational techniques. Overall, Dr. Murley felt that there was very little learning going on and that Respondent was having a lot of difficulty keeping the class aware of what he was trying to teach them and trying to keep them engaged. On February 5, 1999, Dr. Murley met and reviewed his observations with Respondent. Respondent listened to some of the suggestions but not all of them. Respondent did not contest any of Dr. Murley’s observations on the summative form at that time. Subsequently, Dr. Murley attended a meeting with Respondent, his union representative, Ms. Harris, and Ms. Stafford. At that subsequent conference, Respondent resisted all suggestions and criticized Dr. Murley’s observations. As a result of Dr. Murley’s observation and Ms. Harris’ other concerns, Ms. Harris gave Respondent an unsatisfactory rating on the mid-year evaluation. On February 22, 1999, Ms. Harris met with Respondent and gave him the evaluation; Respondent signed the evaluation under protest. Respondent accused Ms. Harris and Ms. Stafford of “obsessive misanthropy.” This can only be construed as an attack on their professionalism and an accusation that they were biased against male professionals. On March 3, 1999, another conference was held, at which time Respondent presented his written rebuttal 4/ disputing each of Ms. Harris’ concerns from the February 22nd meeting. Respondent was not receptive to any suggestions, and the meeting itself was adversarial. By memorandum dated March 8, 1999, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that he was being placed on a 30-day school-site assistance plan, and that failure to improve his performance could result in further action. A copy of the written assistance plan was provided to Respondent at that time. Respondent was also provided with copies of letters and reports from students in Respondent’s classes regarding the climate in the classroom and Respondent’s evaluation of students. On March 10, 1999, Ms. Harris met with Respondent, together with Dr. Jeanne Burdsall, Director of Professional Standards, and Diane Curcio-Greaves, a specialist from the Professional Standards Department, regarding the school-site assistance plan. Dr. Burdsall and Ms. Curcio-Greaves developed a checklist for the 30-day plan. As part of the plan, Respondent was to observe another teacher’s class, turn in a discipline plan by March 22, 1999, and work with a Peer Assistance and Review (“PAR”) Consulting Teacher. Respondent and his union representative consented to his referral for PAR assistance. Follow-up meetings to review progress under the plan were scheduled for approximately every ten days. On or about March 15, 1999, Respondent provided a written response to Ms. Harris, contesting the charges against him. On March 17, 1999, Ms. Curcio-Greaves arranged for Respondent to observe a class at Atlantic High School. During that observation, Ms. Curcio-Greaves pointed out to Respondent certain teaching behaviors that she considered effective. Two areas were focused upon: management of student conduct and instructional organization and development. Respondent could have benefited from observing that class, but he resisted the efforts of Ms. Curcio-Greaves to help him improve his performance. On March 16, 1999, as part of the on-site school assistance plan, Virginia McGrath, a member of the Area Office’s Instructional Support Team and a certified CTAS evaluator, observed one of Respondent’s classes for approximately one hour and noted several areas for improvement. Specifically, she observed that Respondent did not review the assignment with the class, and that the students did not seem to understand the material being covered. Further, Respondent would not answer the questions of students who were unclear about the materials and/or the assignment and allowed too much down time. Ms. McGrath did not observe any actual teaching by Respondent during this observation. On March 18, 1999, Ms. Harris conducted a school-wide training session regarding the new CTAS evaluation system, which had been negotiated by the School District and the CTA and approved by DOE. Respondent attended the training. On March 19, 1999, pursuant to the terms of the on- site school assistance program, Ms. Harris again met with Ms. Curcio-Greaves and Respondent to review his progress under the on-site plan. During the meeting, Respondent complained that he should not be involved in the observation process, and he was not receptive to Ms. Curcio-Greaves’ observations. Instead, Respondent was critical of the teachers he observed and opined that Atlantic High School was a bad school overall. Pursuant to Respondent’s request at that meeting, Ms. Harris scheduled a follow-up meeting for March 23, 1999, to further discuss Respondent’s evaluation. On April 9, 1999, a follow-up meeting was held to review Respondent’s progress under the school assistance program. By this time, Respondent had still not provided the required classroom management plan; rather, he had only turned in a copy of the rule book. At the meeting, Respondent was informed of a professional standards workshop on presentation of subject matter and planning, to take place on April 27, 1999. As part of the school assistance plan, Respondent attended that workshop. Also pursuant to the school assistance plan, the PAR panel granted, on April 15, 1999, Respondent’s request for inclusion in the program, and assigned a PAR Consulting Teacher. On April 15, 1999, Dr. Burdsall attended an evaluation meeting with Respondent, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Matulaitis. During the meeting, Respondent stated that the principal was unprofessional, and commented that one particular student and that student’s father were “not too bright.” Respondent also stated (referring to Dr. Burdsall and Ms. Harris) that, “The ladies are unable to handle this, you live in a fluffy world,” and responded to a question by Dr. Burdsall with “no, my love, no.” Respondent was insulting to Ms. Harris and Dr. Burdsall and resisted the remedial assistance being provided to him. On April 16, 1999, pursuant to the CTA CBA, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that she would be observing his class during the week of April 19-23, 1999. Subsequently, Ms. Harris conducted the observation of Respondent’s classroom on April 22, 1999, and prepared a narrative report of her observations. Based upon her observations, Ms. Harris concluded that Respondent still did not have adequate control of his classroom environment and was exhibiting the same deficiencies as she had noted in the February 1999 evaluation. By memorandum dated April 26, 1999, Ms. Harris informed Respondent of her observations and, on April 30, 1999, personally met with him to discuss the matter further. Respondent did not agree with the assessment. Ms. Harris provided to Respondent a follow-up memorandum on May 5, 1999. By memorandum dated April 23, 1999, Mr. Matulaitis requested that the completion date for the school-site assistance plan be extended, as some items had not yet been completed. Upon review of the matter, Ms. Harris noted that most items had been completed without any noticeable improvement by Respondent. Specifically, Ms. Harris had still not received the discipline plan she had requested back in November, nor had Respondent provided to her revised lesson plans. Further, none of the observations of his classes showed any change in strategies in the classroom. In addition, Respondent became more adversarial and abusive at each follow-up meeting and consistently resisted suggestions. Ms. Harris denied Mr. Matulaitis’ request to extend the completion date for the school-site assistance plan. Dr. Mary Gray, a professor at Florida Atlantic University, is an expert in teacher evaluation who works with the school district as a consultant in teacher evaluation cases. Dr. Gray met Respondent on April 27, 1999, when he attended a workshop she conducted on planning for instruction and presentation of subject matter (including classroom management and questioning techniques) as part of his remediation program. Dr. Gray testified that Respondent appeared resistant to participating in the workshop. On May 4, 1999, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that she would provide transportation for him to go to another school and observe another teacher’s classroom as part of his remediation plan. Ms. Harris further informed Respondent that she would provide a substitute teacher for his classes that day. On that same date, Respondent signed the notification under protest and asked for the trip to be rescheduled. On May 5th and 6th, however, Respondent was absent from work. On May 6, 1999, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that his May 5, 1999, meeting to observe an ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher had been rescheduled for May 10, 1999, due to Respondent’s absence on May 5th. This was one of the last open items remaining on Respondent’s school-site assistance plan. By letter dated May 6, 1999, Ms. Harris requested then Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joan P. Kowal, to place Respondent on a 90-day performance probation, because Respondent had completed the school-site assistance plan without making any improvement in the noted areas of deficiency. On May 11, 1999, Respondent received his year-end CTAS evaluation. The evaluation noted the same deficiencies as had been noted on the February evaluation. The evaluation rated Respondent as unsatisfactory overall, and noted that a 90-day district-level assistance plan would be implemented. By letter dated May 12, 1999, Superintendent Kowal formally advised Respondent that he had been placed on 90-day performance probation and that he would receive a Professional Development Plan (the district plan) to support remediation of the deficiencies. Also on May 13, 1999, Ms. Harris provided to Respondent copies of letters from students and one parent regarding the climate in Respondent’s classroom and Respondent’s failure to appropriately evaluate student needs. Ms. Harris testified that the student concerns were addressed in the form of a petition, and that she had never received such a document for any other teacher at BRCHS. Ms. Harris referred Respondent to specific sections in the school-site assistance plan for suggestions on improvement strategies in the noted areas of concern. On that same day, Ms. Harris also requested that Superintendent Kowal revise the district plan to delete the seventh area of concern (working relationships with parents) as a result of the disposition of a grievance Respondent had filed about his evaluation. Ms. Harris had been told by her supervisor that it would be more beneficial for Respondent to concentrate on the other six areas, which more directly affected Respondent’s instructional activities. Respondent’s May 1999 evaluation was also changed accordingly. On May 14, 1999, the ESOL teacher assigned to meet with Respondent pursuant to the school-site assistance plan reported to Ms. Harris that Respondent had been resistant to the ESOL teacher’s suggestions as to the use of ESOL strategies. At a meeting on May 19, 1999, Respondent was officially placed on a 90-day district plan and notified of his right to a deficiency hearing -- which he requested. At that meeting, a checklist for the district plan was developed. Everyone agreed to the plan and agreed that it complied with the CTA CBA. Neither Respondent nor the CTA objected to the fact that Respondent had been placed on the 30-day and 90-day programs. The deficiency hearing to review the 90-day district plan was conducted with Cheryl Alligood serving as the hearing officer. The hearing was held before Ms. Alligood, the principal, the union representative, and the teacher. The purpose of a deficiency hearing is for the union representative to come with the teacher and the principal to review what concerns there may have been and whether sufficient assistance is being provided to the teacher by the district plan. Respondent, who was represented by counsel at the deficiency hearing, asserted that his performance was not deficient and that Ms. Harris was “out to get him.” Subsequently, Ms. Alligood found sufficient reason to continue Respondent on the district plan. Respondent received notice of that determination on July 6, 1999. Pursuant to Respondent’s agreement, Dr. Burdsall arranged for Respondent to observe a Dwyer Award recipient or nominee. A Dwyer Award is given for excellence in teaching. Respondent did not keep his appointment that had been set up by Dr. Burdsall. The observation was rescheduled, but again, the Respondent did not show up. Respondent also failed to attend a workshop set up by the PAR teachers specifically for the purpose of helping him remediate his particular teaching deficiencies. Dr. Burdsall offered Respondent the opportunity to attend a different workshop. Again, he did not attend. During the 1998- 99 school year, several remedial workshops were recommended to Respondent to assist in his professional development that he did not take advantage of. On May 27, 1999 (about a week before the end of the school year), Dr. Gray observed Respondent’s teaching performance in the classroom, at which time she noted he was deficient in several areas. The most critical deficiency Dr. Gray noted was that Respondent was not performing at the minimal teaching level. Based on her observations, Dr. Gray did not consider Respondent to be a competent teacher. Following the observation, Dr. Gray met with Respondent to review the results of her observation and to offer constructive criticism. Respondent was defensive and clearly resented being involved in the observation/remediation process. Respondent angrily voiced that resentment to Dr. Gray. Respondent subsequently provided Ms. Harris with a written response to Dr. Gray’s observations, disagreeing with each one. Respondent’s district plan extended through the summer. Dr. Burdsall met with Respondent following the summer break and determined that Respondent had not done anything over the summer to try to help his remediation process. At the August 13, 1999, meeting, Dr. Burdsall, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Matulaitis agreed it would be beneficial for Respondent to attend a couple of workshops on management of student conduct and instructional strategies. In addition, it was decided that the PAR teacher would continue for the 1999-2000 school year. Dr. Burdsall testified that the meeting was unlike any other assistance review meetings she has had because of the adversarial, abusive attitudes of Respondent and his union representative. Dr. Burdsall was under the impression that Respondent was never going to remediate. On August 26, 1999, pursuant to the 90-day district plan, Tcherina Duncombe, a specialist in the Professional Standards Office, conducted an hour-long observation of Respondent’s classroom and prepared a narrative report of her observations. Ms. Duncombe determined that Respondent needed improvement in the same areas that had been of concern during the prior school year, including management of student conduct, instructional organization and development, and establishing an appropriate classroom climate. Ms. Duncombe observed that Respondent’s instruction that day was not organized and was ineffectual, and that his directions were unclear. Further, Respondent failed to discipline some students for talking in class and making inappropriate comments, but then would discipline others in an inappropriate manner. Ms. Duncombe subsequently discussed her findings and suggested improvement strategies with Respondent, but he did not appear to be receptive. During the one-hour review session Ms. Duncombe had with Respondent, Respondent spent most of the time making negative comments about the district plan and Ms. Harris. Based upon the information contained in the narrative, Ms. Harris determined that Respondent had not made any improvement in his classroom teaching performance. On September 9, 1999, Respondent provided a written response to Ms. Duncombe’s observations, taking issue with each point made by Ms. Duncombe. On September 18, 1999, Respondent was notified via certified mail that a second observation would take place during the week of September 21, 1999, by Ms. McGrath, as part of the district plan. At the same time, Respondent was informed that a previously scheduled meeting had been reset to September 21, 1999. Ms. McGrath conducted her second observation of Respondent on September 22, 1999. Again, Ms. McGrath did not observe any actual teaching, and Respondent again failed to review materials with the students and clarify any confusing assignments. Ms. McGrath also observed students talking in class (including the utterance of a couple obscenities) and passing notes. In addition, Respondent was inconsistent with requests for bathroom leaves. Further, Respondent had not implemented any of Ms. McGrath’s recommendations from the previous observation (there was no defined lesson and Respondent was not meeting the needs of all his students). After the second observation, Ms. McGrath was concerned about Respondent’s competency as a teacher. Based upon the information contained in Ms. McGrath’s summary of her observation, Ms. Harris determined that Respondent still had not made any improvement in his classroom teaching performance. Dr. Burdsall was present during a September 21, 1999, district plan meeting wherein the evaluations of Ms. Duncombe and Dr. Gray were reviewed. Respondent insulted Dr. Burdsall again. Dr. Burdsall testified that she had never had a teacher become abusive when she was trying to provide assistance. Rather than walk out of the meeting, Dr. Burdsall continued to try and provide assistance to Respondent. Despite Respondent’s attitude, Dr. Burdsall continued to make efforts to assist Respondent and get him to see other teachers. On October 4, 1999, Ms. Harris received a letter from a student concerning Respondent’s teaching methods. Ms. Harris testified that the complaints in the letter were consistent with the same pattern of deficiencies exhibited by Respondent on other occasions. Ms. Harris provided copies of the letter to Respondent and, on October 7, 1999, scheduled a brief meeting with him to discuss the letter. The meeting was held on October 8, 1999. At the meeting, Respondent was also given a copy of an observation summary conducted by Dr. Penny Beers, the curriculum specialist for the School Board's language arts program, discussed infra. Further, Ms. Harris notified Respondent that she would be observing his classroom the week of October 11, 1999. On October 5, 1999, Respondent, through his counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. In that action, Respondent sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the School Board to cease the 90-day district-level remediation program and restraining the School Board from treating Respondent as a PSC teacher. Respondent argued that, as a CC teacher under Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, he could only be dismissed for immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Respondent further argued that the 90-day district plan could not be applied to CC teachers. By order dated November 1, 1999, following oral argument on the issue, the Circuit Court denied Respondent’s Petition. On October 6, 1999, Dr. Beers conducted an observation of Respondent’s classroom as part of the district plan. Although Dr. Beers made several commendations in her observation summary, she made even more recommendations for improvement. Based upon her one-hour observation, Dr. Beers felt that Respondent had not demonstrated his competence as a teacher because she saw very little instructional time used during that one-hour period. Specifically, Respondent engaged the students in actual instruction for only ten minutes of the one-hour period. She also noted that Respondent was inconsistent in his meting out of discipline and was not very aware of what the students were doing (which was referred to as lacking “with-it- ness”). Dr. Beers wrote up a summary of her observation in narrative form, and included commendations as well as recommendations for improvement. From those recommendations, Ms. Harris determined that Respondent had still not made any progress toward remediating his teaching deficiencies. Ms. Harris observed Respondent’s class on October 12, 1999, and prepared a narrative summary. Respondent’s classroom performance at that time was consistent with previous observations. Ms. Harris did not note any improvement. On October 15, 1999, Ms. Harris prepared an evaluation for Respondent, rating his performance as being unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactory evaluation was based on Respondent’s failure to remediate any of the previously noted six areas of concern and his lack of effort in that regard. Ms. Harris also notified Superintendent Kowal that, although Respondent was provided 90 days of assistance, his performance deficiencies had not been corrected to a sufficient degree to warrant a satisfactory evaluation. Dr. Kowal in turn notified Respondent that she would recommend to the School Board Respondent’s dismissal effective 15 days from the November 4, 1999, School Board meeting. At the end of the 1996-97 school year, Respondent erroneously recorded that all but one student in a class had failed the final examination. The incorrect grades appeared on the final report cards for the 1996-97 school year. On September 17, 1997, a pre-disciplinary hearing was held to determine whether further action should be taken. At that pre- disciplinary hearing, it was established that the failing grades were the result of Respondent's record-keeping errors and that no further action would be taken against him after Respondent changed the erroneous grades. Respondent repeatedly failed to maintain adequate records of grades, made errors in reporting grades, and misplaced students' work. Count II alleged that Respondent refused to submit the end-of-year checklist prior to summer break for the 1998/99 school year. The evidence failed to establish that allegation. Count II also alleged that Respondent falsified a disciplinary referral by indicating on the referral record that he had spoken to the student's parent when, in fact, he had not done so. Respondent admitted that he had not spoken directly with the parent, but he testified, credibly, that he had left a message on the parent's answering machine and did not intend to mislead anyone by the referral record. Count II alleged that Respondent meted out inappropriate, unwarranted, and unequal punishment to students, and that he used grades and denial of make-up work opportunities as methods of punishment. Respondent meted out inappropriate, unwarranted, and unequal punishment to students. Petitioner did not establish that Respondent used grades and denial of make-up work opportunities as methods of punishment. As alleged in Count III, Petitioner established that Respondent was guilty of insubordination by his continuing failure to provide Ms. Harris with lesson plans and with a discipline plan. In explaining to the arbitrator who heard one of his grievances, Respondent testified that he did not do a discipline because he did not do "diddly" tasks. The remaining allegations of insubordination or willful neglect of duty set forth in Count III were not established by Petitioner. Petitioner established that each observation of Respondent's performance at issue in this proceeding was pursuant to and consistent with its established evaluation process. Each person who formally observed Respondent's classroom performance was appropriately trained and objectively reported their observations, which were factually based. Petitioner further established that each performance evaluation at issue in this proceeding was pursuant to and consistent with its established evaluation process. The various findings of unsatisfactory performance were justified by documented observations as required by the evaluation process. The 90-day district plan provided Respondent with appropriate assistance to help him correct his teaching deficiencies. Petitioner clearly established that Respondent repeatedly resisted efforts to help him. Respondent failed to remediate his deficiencies. This failure should be attributed more to a negative attitude than a lack of ability. At the March 29, 2000, School Board meeting, the Superintendent of Schools submitted a written recommendation that Respondent be dismissed from his CC teaching position with the School District at the end of the 1999-2000 school year, effective May 31, 2000. Respondent and his attorney were given an opportunity to be heard regarding the Superintendent’s recommendation. The School Board voted in favor of the Superintendent's recommendation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent’s continuing contract of employment effective at the end of the 1999-2000 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended contract award pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. SDOC-11-B-049- CJ for ready-mix concrete is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact In October 2010, the School District issued an invitation to bid for ready-mix concrete (the original ITB). The only bidder who submitted a bid in response to the original ITB was Bedrock. Bedrock had had the concrete contract with the School District for the prior three years and had used a front discharge delivery method. On December 7, 2010, Cindy Hartig (Ms. Hartig) and Michael Grego (Mr. Grego), who at the time was the superintendent of the School District, had a conversation concerning the award of the concrete contract to Bedrock pursuant to the original ITB. Mr. Grego testified that Ms. Hartig told him that the School Board would not support a recommendation to award the contract to Bedrock. Mr. Grego further testified that when he asked Ms. Hartig how she knew that the School Board would not support an award to Bedrock, she did not say how she knew. Ms. Hartig testified that Mr. Grego told her that he had polled the School Board members and that they advised they would not support an award of a contract to Bedrock. Having considered the testimony of Mr. Grego and Ms. Hartig, the testimony of Mr. Grego is more credible. On December 7, 2010, prior to the School Board meeting in which the School Board considered the original ITB, Ms. Hartig sent an email to Mr. Grego and Cheryl Olson (Ms. Olson), who was the director of purchasing for the School District. The email stated: Team, An ex board member works for bedrock An ex board member is building the house for the owner of bedrock Bedrock is only one of two companies that have front discharge trucks And reality is the front discharge is not needed, most CM's will not use them Please re look at the requirements for this bid prior to rebid Also make sure that each company is getting the vendor request and that it is not in their spam thank you cindy lou The former board member to whom Ms. Hartig was referring was John McKay (Mr. McKay). There had been friction between Ms. Hartig and Mr. McKay in the past. At the School Board meeting on December 7, 2010, the School Board voted to reject all bids for the original ITB. The reasoning for rejecting all bids was not apparent from the minutes of the School Board meeting. There was no evidence presented that the School Board, as a whole, was biased against Bedrock or that Ms. Hartig had influenced the School Board to reject all bids. On December 10, 2010, the School District issued the rebid ITB, which allowed the vendors to bid front and rear discharge methods of delivery. It was felt that having both front and rear delivery would give the maintenance staff an opportunity to choose the method they wanted to use on a job-by- job basis. The rebid ITB includes a bid submittal form on which the bidders are to submit their prices. There are 15 separate line items on which the bidders may submit a bid. Line items 1 and 2 are for delivery of ready-mix concrete using a front discharge cement truck. Line items 3 and 4 are for delivery of ready-mix concrete using a rear discharge cement truck. The rebid ITB did not specify whether the bidders had to submit a price for each line item in order to be deemed responsive. Paragraph 25, on page 2 of 29 of the rebid ITB states: AWARD: As the best interests of the School Board may require, the School Board reserves the right to make award(s) by individual item, group of items, all or none, or a combination thereof; on a geographical basis and/or on a district wide basis with one or more supplier(s) or provider(s); to reject any and all offers or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in offers received. Offerors are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their offer has been evaluated as being responsive. Any and all award(s) made as a result of this invitation shall conform to applicable School Board Rules, State Board Rules, and State of Florida Statutes. Page 3 of 39 of the rebid ITB provides: "THE SCHOOL BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL OFFERS, TO WAIVE ANY INFORMALITIES, AND TO ACCEPT ALL OR ANY PART OF ANY OFFER AS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SCHOOL BOARD." Section 2.09 of the rebid ITB provides: The School Board reserves the right to award the contract to the bidder(s) that the Board deems to offer the lowest responsive and responsible bid(s), as defined elsewhere in this solicitation. The Board is therefore not bound to accept a bid on the basis of lowest price. In addition, the Board has the sole discretion and reserves the right to cancel this Bid, to reject any and all bids to waive any and all information and/or irregularities, or to re-advertise with either the identical or revised specifications, if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Board to do so. The Board also reserves the right to make multiple awards based on experience and qualifications or to award only a portion of the items and/or services specified, if it is deemed to be in the Board's best interest. Section 2.42 of the rebid ITB provides: "The School Board reserves the right to award one or more contracts to provide the required services as deemed to be in the best interest of the School Board." Section 2.11 of the rebid ITB defines "responsive and responsible" as follows: Each bid submittal shall be evaluated for conformance as responsive and responsible using the following criteria: Proper submittal of ALL documentation as required by this bid. (Responsive) The greatest benefits to the School District as it pertains to: (Responsible) Total Cost. Delivery. Past Performance. In order to evaluate past performance, all bidders are required to submit: A list of references with the bid and; A list of relevant projects completed within the last 3 years that are the same or similar to the magnitude of this ITB. All technical specifications associated with this bid. Financial Stability: Demonstrated ability, capacity and/or resources to acquire and maintain required staffing. Bidders are reminded that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest bid. Rather, award will be made to lowest responsive, responsible, bidder whose bid represents the best overall value to the School District when considering all evaluation factors. Two vendors, Bedrock and Prestige, submitted bids in response to the rebid ITB. Bedrock does not have the capability to provide concrete with rear delivery trucks. Therefore, Bedrock did not submit a bid for concrete delivered by rear discharge trucks. Bedrock submitted a bid for concrete delivered with front discharge trucks. Bedrock's total bid price was $74,887.50. Prestige's bid was for concrete delivered by rear discharge trucks. Prestige did not submit a price for concrete delivered by front discharge trucks. Prestige's total bid price was $70,300.00. The bid tabulation was posted on January 18, 2011. Staff of the School District made a recommendation to the School Board to award the front discharge portion of the rebid ITB to Bedrock and to award the rear discharge portion to Prestige. The recommendation was placed on the agenda for the School Board meeting scheduled for February 1, 2011. There was a discussion among the School Board members concerning notification to the vendors. Thomas Long (Mr. Long) became a School Board member in November 2010. He was concerned by the lack of response to the original ITB and, on January 27, 2011, requested Ms. Olson to send him a list of local vendors who did not respond to the rebid ITB. The purpose of the communication was to learn why vendors were not submitting bids. He contacted one vendor who did not submit a bid, but he did not contact either Bedrock or Prestige. The communication would have had to have been made after he received the list of vendors on January 28, 2011. Section 7.70 I. G. of the School Board Policy Manual provides: Vendors, contractors, consultants, or their representatives shall not meet with, speak individually with, or otherwise communicate with School Board members, the Superintendent, or School District Staff, other than the designated purchasing agent, and School Board members, the Superintendent, or School District staff, other than the designated purchasing agent shall not meet with, speak individually with, or otherwise communicate with vendors, contractors, consultants, or their representatives, about potential contracts with the School Board once an invitation to bid, request for quote, request for proposal, invitation to negotiate, or request for qualification has been issued. Any such communication shall disqualify the vendor, contractor, or consultant from responding to the subject invitation to bid, request for quote, request for proposal, invitation to negotiate, or request for qualifications. At the February 1, 2011, School Board meeting, the School Board voted to appoint Scott Stegall (Mr. Stegall) as the new chief facilities officer for the School District. The School Board also voted to table the issue of the concrete contract in order to give Mr. Stegall an opportunity to review the procurement. Mr. Stegall did review the procurement and recommended that the contract award be split between Bedrock and Prestige. There was no difference between the quality of the concrete whether it was delivery by a front discharge truck or a rear discharge truck. Whether it would be more efficient to use a front discharge versus a rear discharge method of delivery would depend on the job for which the concrete was ordered. The recommendation to split the award of the concrete contract was placed on the agenda for the School Board meeting scheduled for March 1, 2011. Five School Board members were present for the School Board meeting of March 1, 2011. Four School Board members voted to reject the staff recommendation and to award the contract to Prestige. One School Board member voted against awarding the contract to Prestige. Thus, the School Board's intended award of the contract was to Prestige.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the intended award to Prestige was not contrary to the School Board's governing statutes, the School Board's policies or rules, or the rebid ITB and that the intended award to Prestige was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND 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 August, 2011.
The Issue Whether the actions taken by the superintendent and staff of the Duval County School Board prior to December 1, 1974, were sufficient to achieve comparability pursuant to the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by Public Law 91-230 instituting a project referred to as the Title I Program. The Respondent, Department of Education, has the responsibility of administering the Title I Program and dispensing federal funds to the various school districts throughout the State of Florida. Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is a large urban school district of some 112,000 students and 10,000 employees. There are 134 schools in the district of which 28 are designated as E.S.E.A. Title I Project Schools. The statute under consideration is 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 241(e): "(a) A Local educational agency may receive a grant under this sub-chapter for any fiscal year only upon application therefore approved by the appropriate State educational agency, upon its determination (consistent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may establish) . . . (3) That . . .(c) state and local funds be used in the District of such agencies to provide services in project areas which, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services being provided in areas in such districts which are not receiving funds under this sub-chapter: . . . provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds under this sub-chapter shall report on or before July 1, 1971 and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter with respect to its compliance with this clause; . . ." The regulation under consideration which was promulgated to implement the statute is Regulation Sec. 116.26, a part of which reads: "(a) A state educational agency shall not approve an application of a local educational agency for a grant under section 141(a) of the Act, or make payments of Title I funds under a previously approved application of such agency, unless that local educational agency has demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, that services provided with State and local funds in title I project areas are at least comparable to the services being provided with State and local funds in school serving attendance areas not designated as Title I project areas. Such approval shall not be given unless the local educational agency also provides the assurances and the additional information required' by paragraph (e) of this section with respect to the maintenance of comparability. For the purpose of this section, State and local funds include those funds used in the determination of fiscal effort in accordance with Section 116.45." 116.26(c) "If any school serving a Title I Project Area is determined not to be comparable under this paragraph, no further payments of Title I funds shall be made to the local educational agency until that agency has taken the action required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section to overcome such lack of comparability." Regulation Sec. 116.26(k)(1) in part reads: "that such local educational agency has allocated or reallocated sufficient additional resources to Title I Project Areas so as to come into compliance with such requirements and has filed a revised comparability report reflecting such compliance." Petitioner, Duval County School Board, has been the recipient of Title I funds on a year to year basis since 1965, but was deemed by the Respondent to be in violation of the federal requirements from December 1, 1974 through January 2, 1975 for the reason that Petitioner had not "achieved comparability" for that period of time. Funds withheld from Petitioner, in excess of $325,000 are involved in this hearing. The following sequence of events are pertinent: On or about July 1, 1974, the Duval County application for Fiscal Year 1974 was filed and approved based on the assurance that comparability existed in Duval County and would be maintained throughout the 1974-75 school year. On or about September 27, 1974, the Respondent advised local school districts that October 1, 1974 was the date for collecting the data on which the comparability report for Fiscal Year 1975 would be based. On October 7 and 8, 1974, and again on November 7 and 8, 1974, conferences and meetings were held with representatives of various school boards, including those of the Petitioner. The purpose of these meetings and conferences was to inform these school boards concerning the requirements of achieving and maintaining comparability. On November 20, 1974, in a memorandum from Woodrow J. Darden marked "URGENT" the Respondent advised all Superintendents, the Finance Officers and Title I Coordinators that the comparability reports were due on or before December 1, 1974. A part of said memorandum stated: "If the comparability report submitted by your district did not meet the measures to determine comparability as outlined in the Federal Regulations, administrative or Board action for the purpose of reallocating resources should be taken on or before December 1, 1974, to bring the schools into compliance." The date of December 1, 1974 is established by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). On November 26 and 27, 1974, the Superintendent authorized a reallocation of instructional staff and authorized budgetary transfers to bring Petitioner up to the required level of comparability. On December 1, 1974, Petitioner filed its report. On December 17, 1974, the Director, Special Projects, received a copy from Department of Education of a MAILGRAM from Robert R. Wheeler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for School Systems, United States Office of Education to Honorable Ralph Turlington, stating: "this is to remind you that your agency is required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act not to make any further payments as of December 1 to any local educational agency that has not as of that date complied with the comparability requirements in 45 CFR 116.26 and to notify each such agency not to obligate any Title I funds after that date. Compliance with this requirement is subject to Federal Audit. Your continued cooperation is appreciated." By a letter dated December 18, 1974, the Respondent notified Petitioner funds were being withheld for the period of December 1 through December 16, 1974. An audit was conducted by Petitioner following the withholding of funds of December 18, 1974, and this audit revealed that comparability had still not been achieved. A revised report dated December 27, 1974 indicated that additional personnel still were needed to meet comparability requirements. Pursuant thereto additional personnel reported to work on or about January 2, 1975. By a letter dated January 16, 1975, the Respondent rescinded the prior authorization that had permitted the resumption of the use of Title I funds as of December 16, 1974 and extended the period of withholding of Title I funds through January 1, 1975. Following the notification to Petitioner that the funds were being withheld, the Petitioner requested a hearing in order to appeal the withholding of the Title I funds for the period of December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974. This request for a hearing was later amended to include the period of time from December 15, 1975 through January 1, 1975. Petitioner contends: That it complied with the requirements of the subject statute and regulation when it unconditionally committed itself on November 26, 1974 to the employment of necessary personnel by the establishment and budgeting of all necessary positions and direction that such positions be filled. Petitioner further contends that good faith on its part and substantial compliance is all that the statute and regulation require. Respondent contends: That the subject statute and regulation require that compliance with the comparability requirements is a continuing state of being and must be maintained throughout the year. Respondent further contends that the Federal statute and regulation require not only that the positions be budgeted and directions be given to employ but that the positions be actually filled and the personnel on the job on or before the filing of the report required by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). The Hearing Officer further finds: That both Petitioner and Respondent have demonstrated a dedication and concern for the schools within their respective jurisdictions; That both Petitioner and Respondent have been diligent in trying to act within the provisions of the subject statute and regulations; That the personnel of both the Petitioner and Respondent are familiar with the requirements of the statute and regulation but the federal requirements are subject to different interpretations by reasonable persons. There was no meeting of the minds of the parties from the federal, state and local governmental units as to the required method of compliance with the laws.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Orange County School Board (Petitioner) had just cause for termination of the employment of Michele O'Neill (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed under a professional services contract by the Petitioner as a classroom teacher at Lakemont Elementary School, a unit of the Orange County Public School System. At all times material to this case, Dr. Susan Stephens was the principal of Lakemont Elementary School. The Petitioner has adopted a "Drug-Free Workplace" policy (the Policy) that in relevant part provides as follows: No employee shall use, possess, manufacture, distribute, or be under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol while on duty or on school board property, except when he/she is using a controlled substance in conformance with the instructions of a physician. The Policy provides for "Reasonable Suspicion testing" and provides that such tests may be performed "based on a belief that an employee is using or has used alcohol or drugs" in violation of the Policy, and further provides as follows: Reasonable suspicion testing must be based on specific, contemporaneous documented objective and articulable observations and circumstances which are consistent with the long and short term effects of alcohol or substance abuse; including, but not limited to, physical signs and symptoms, appearance, behavior, speech and/or odor on the person. Supervisors who have Reasonable Suspicion that an employee may be under the influence while on duty are required to immediately direct the employee to submit to testing as provided for by the board. Reasonable Suspicion shall be in accordance with training provided to managers, and will require confirmation by two trained managers. One of the two managers may include the supervisor, if trained. A refusal to submit to testing will result in a recommendation to terminate the employee. The Policy includes an "observation checklist" of characteristics indicative of potential alcohol or controlled substance use, which "includes, but is not limited to" slurred speech, confusion/disorientation, odor of alcohol on breath or person, rapid/continuous eye movement or an inability to focus, and improper job performance and/or violation of authority. Dr. Stephens has received training in "Reasonable Suspicion" observations. During the 2002-2003 school year, the Respondent was seriously injured in an automobile crash that required an extended absence from the classroom. She eventually returned to teaching about a year later, but continued to suffer the after- effects of the injuries, including an altered and uneven manner of walking. For the vast majority of the Respondent's employment with the Petitioner, her performance has been evaluated as "effective," and she was regarded as a good teacher. There is some evidence that, after the Respondent's post-accident return to teaching, there were concerns related to the Respondent's job performance. A letter from Dr. Stephens to the Respondent dated February 25, 2005, specifically addressed a number of issues, including collaboration with co-workers, anger management, and focusing on academic instruction during classroom time. Also subsequent to the Respondent's return to the classroom, a small number of parents whose children were being taught by the Respondent expressed various concerns about the education the students were receiving. For various reasons, some parents asked that their children be transferred to the classrooms of other teachers. Late in the school day on Friday, September 30, 2005, a parent contacted Dr. Stephens and reported that during a classroom meeting with the Respondent, the parent detected the odor of alcohol on the Respondent. The parent asked that the child be transferred to another teacher's classroom. Dr. Stephens attempted to locate the Respondent at that time, but the school day was finished and the Respondent had apparently left the campus. On Monday, October 3, 2005, Dr. Stephens came to the Respondent's classroom to discuss the requested transfer, and during the meeting, Dr. Stephens detected the odor of alcohol emanating from the Respondent. Dr. Stephens returned to her office and asked the school's assistant principal, Randall Hart, to go to the Respondent's classroom and talk to her. He did so and then returned to Dr. Stephens' office where he reported to her that the Respondent smelled of alcohol. Dr. Stephens contacted the Petitioner's Employee Relations department to inquire as to how to proceed, and was provided the names of several school board personnel who had received training in "Reasonable Suspicion" observations. From the names provided to Dr. Stephens, she contacted Dr. Suzanne Ackley, principal of Brookshire Elementary School in Winter Park, and asked her to come to Lakemont Elementary School and observe a teacher for indications of being under the influence. Dr. Ackley arrived shortly after being contacted by Dr. Stephens. Dr. Stephens and Dr. Ackley went to the Respondent's classroom and met with the Respondent. No students were present in the room at the time. Dr. Stephens identified Dr. Ackley as the principal of Brookshire Elementary. Dr. Ackley engaged the Respondent in a conversation about curriculum issues. During the meeting, Dr. Ackley detected the odor of alcohol emanating from the Respondent, and believed that the Respondent's speech sounded "slurred." After meeting the Respondent, Dr. Ackley and Dr. Stephens returned to the school office. Dr. Ackley told Dr. Stephens that she had detected the odor of alcohol while talking to the Respondent. Dr. Ackley then left the Lakemont campus. Shortly after Dr. Ackley departed, and in accordance with the Policy, Dr. Stephens informed the Respondent that there was concern related to possible alcohol use. Dr. Stephens ordered the Respondent to accompany her to a facility used by the school board for alcohol and controlled substance testing. Although the Respondent initially agreed to accompany Dr. Stephens to the facility and to submit to the test, within a few minutes, the Respondent changed her mind and refused to travel with the principal to the testing facility. The Respondent stated that she wanted to go home prior to going to the testing facility, ostensibly to retrieve some prescription medications that she wanted to take to the facility. The Respondent testified that she had not been using alcohol on October 3, 2005. She offered vague testimony about an immaterial personal matter, the import of which was that the Respondent went to an emergency room on October 1, 2005, where she received prescriptions for medications including Flexeril, a muscle relaxant. She asserted that she did not refuse to submit to the test, but that she merely wanted to drive herself home to retrieve the prescription medications prior to continuing on to the drug testing facility, to establish that the behaviors exhibited were related to the use of the medications prescribed at the hospital. The Respondent's testimony is not credible and is rejected. The Respondent offered the expert testimony of Dr. Rahn Shaw, who opined that the prescribed medications could have accounted for some of the Respondent's physical presentation on October 3, 2005; however, there is no evidence that use of the referenced medications could create an odor of alcohol on or about a person taking the medications. Dr. Stephens declined to permit the Respondent to go home before submitting to the test, and continued in attempting to convince the Respondent to accompany her to the testing facility. Dr. Stephens specifically and repeatedly advised the Respondent that failure to comply with the request would jeopardize the Respondent's employment status, but the Respondent refused to comply. The Respondent decided to leave the school grounds. She went to her car and began to drive the vehicle from the campus, but did not get far from her parking space. The Respondent was prevented from doing so by the school's D.A.R.E. officer, who arrived after being contacted by school personnel concerned about the Respondent's ability to operate the vehicle. The D.A.R.E. officer is also a uniformed police officer. The officer testified that she eventually persuaded the Respondent to exit the vehicle and escorted her to an office in the school where students, who were passing in the vicinity, would not see the Respondent. The officer further testified that Respondent smelled of alcohol at the time the officer intervened in the situation. The Respondent insisted that she was not under the influence of alcohol, and in response, the officer performed a gaze nystagmus test and a "finger-to-nose" test, after which the officer concluded that the Respondent was not capable of driving herself home. Several of the Petitioner's witnesses testified that they were concerned about the Respondent's ability to transport herself home in her personal vehicle. The refusal to permit the Respondent to transport herself to her home or to the testing facility was clearly reasonable based on the observations of the Respondent's behavior. It should also be noted that Dr. Shaw testified that persons using Flexeril "shouldn't be driving or operating machinery because it makes everybody I know drowsy and lethargic" and that "you could qualify for a DUI in this state by taking that medicine and driving most of the time." A cab was called, and the Respondent was taken home in the cab on October 3, 2005. Prior to leaving the campus, Dr. Stephens again attempted to convince the Respondent to submit to the testing and advised that the Respondent's employment was in jeopardy, but to no avail. Dr. Stephens had been in communication with the Employee Relations department during the incident, and had been told to direct the Respondent to contact the Employee Relations department on Tuesday, October 4th, if she chose not to comply with the testing directive. After determining that the Respondent would not comply with the directive and prior to the Petitioner's departure from the school grounds on October 3rd, Dr. Stephens instructed the Respondent to contact the Employee Relations department on the next day. The Respondent later returned to the school grounds and retrieved her vehicle. The Respondent failed to contact the Employee Relations department on October 4, 2005. At the close of that day, and after the Respondent had failed to make contact, Shonda Von Schriltz, senior manager for the Petitioner's Employee Relations department, sent two letters by express mail to the Respondent. The first letter gave notice of a meeting scheduled for October 10, 2005, to discuss the incident. The second letter advised that the Respondent would be placed on "Relief of Duty" with pay, and that the Respondent was required to remain available to school personnel during school hours while on the paid relief period. Attempts to deliver the letters apparently failed for reasons that are unclear. In any event, there was no communication between the Respondent and the Petitioner until October 13, 2005. On that date, a predetermination conference, which was arranged based on an October 12, 2005, request from a teacher's union representative, was held. During the meeting, at which Ms. Von Schriltz was present, the Respondent denied that she had used alcohol on October 3, 2005, or that she had been requested to submit to testing. She had no recollection of having been told anything by Dr. Stephens, and was unable to offer a rationale for leaving campus early on October 3rd. During the October 13th meeting, the Respondent was directed to maintain contact with the Employee Relations department, but after the meeting ended, there was no contact until November 8, 2005, when the Respondent answered one of several telephone calls that had been placed to her number by Ms. Von Schriltz. During the November 8th conversation, the Respondent had no recollection of Ms. Von Schriltz or of the October 13th meeting, and instructed Ms. Von Schriltz to contact the Respondent's legal counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of Michele O'Neill. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Elizabeth F. Swanson, Esquire Egan, Lev and Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
