The Issue The issues for determination in this matter are: 1) whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed on March 5, 2003; and 2) if so, whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County (School Board), is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising the free public schools in the Miami-Dade County school district and has the power to suspend and dismiss employees. Art. XI, § 4(b), Fla. Const; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Debbie T. Darlington, at all material times, was employed by the School Board. Respondent is a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME), and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (the Contract). Respondent is now, and at all material times was, married to Ernest Myles. Her mother-in-law is Charlie Mae Myles. Neither Ernest Myles nor Charlie Mae Myles is or was at any time employed by the School Board. Respondent's Employment History with the School Board Respondent was first employed by the School Board on December 4, 1981, as an associate educator at Westview Elementary School. Respondent had a break in service from August 23, 1983 to November 1, 1993. Respondent then worked as a part-time food service worker at Westview Middle School from November 1, 1993 to January 12, 1995. Respondent had another break in service from January 12, 1995 to August 27, 1997. From August 27, 1997 to March 19, 1999, Respondent worked as a part-time food service worker at North Miami Beach Senior High School. Beginning on March 20, 1999, Respondent worked as a part-time food service worker at Sabal Palm Elementary School. At some time thereafter, Respondent entered the Food Service Manager Training Program. As part of this training program, Respondent was required to serve in a variety of school settings, including elementary, middle and high schools. In March of 2000, Respondent began her training rotation for elementary schools at Liberty City Elementary School (Liberty City). When Respondent first went to Liberty City, she was working in the capacity as a trainee in the Food Service Manager program. Respondent was under the supervision of Margaret Poole, who was then serving as the Food Service Manager for Liberty City. During Respondent's first week at Liberty City, Ms. Poole was injured on the job and did not return to Liberty City. Because Respondent was performing very well, Linda Whye, the principal at Liberty City requested that Respondent stay as temporary Food Service Manager until the completion of the school year. Respondent finished her Food Service Manager program in July 2000. After Respondent satisfactorily completed the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Whye hired Respondent to serve as the Food Service Manager at Liberty City. Respondent was assigned permanently to Liberty City as of October 19, 2000. Respondent served as the Food Service Manager at Liberty City during the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years. In that capacity, Respondent supervised eight to nine employees. Her job responsibilities included the fiscal management and operation of the food services program at Liberty City. Until January of 2002, Respondent generally received satisfactory-to-excellent evaluations in the performance of her duties. Respondent was noted on occasion for failing to keep an accurate daily food record. Reports of Improprieties Sometime in January 2002, Principal Whye learned that Respondent had set off the school alarm system in the cafeteria. This incident occurred at a time after Respondent's regularly scheduled work hours. About a week after the alarm system was set off by Respondent, Samuel Woodside the head custodian at Liberty City, contacted Principal Whye regarding a break-in at Liberty City which occurred over the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. Because of the proximity in time to Respondent's setting off the alarm system, Principal Whye asked Woodside if he had noticed anything unusual going on at the cafeteria. Woodside responded that he had observed an increase in deliveries to the cafeteria, and that he had seen Respondent's husband, Ernest Myles, and Respondent's mother-in-law, Charlie Mae Myles, in the cafeteria workplace area on several occasions. Principal Whye then contacted Penny Parham, former Food Service Director of Operations for Regions I, II and III, which Region III included Liberty City. Ms. Parham currently serves as the Administrative Director for the Miami-Dade Public Schools Food and Nutrition Department. Principal Whye asked Ms. Parham if she could determine whether food or supplies were missing from the cafeteria inventory at Liberty City. In response to Principal Whye's request, Ms. Parham prepared a comparison report from one school year to the next to determine whether the amounts of food and supplies consumed at Liberty City were substantially equal. Ms. Parham's report, which was sent to Principal Whye on March 4, 2002, showed that in comparing the same period (September/October) at Liberty City in 2000 to 2001, there was a 23.6 percent increase in purchased food costs, and a 57.9 percent increase in cost of supplies, without any corresponding increase in the student population at Liberty City. Ms. Parham also reported that when costs and revenues were balanced, the food service program at Liberty City showed a 438.7 percent negative change. Ms. Parham recommended that a more detailed audit be performed to account for these increases in food services at Liberty City. Sometime in February 2002, after she had already contacted Ms. Parham, Principal Whye was contacted by Margaret Lloyd, an employee in the cafeteria who told her that some food and supplies from the cafeteria had been taken for use at the Martin Luther King parade. Principal Whye also received an anonymous note stating that she should watch what Respondent was doing in the cafeteria at Liberty City. Because the note was anonymous, Principal Whye took no specific action in regard to those allegations at that time. Margaret Lloyd later revealed that she was the author of the anonymous note. On March 4, 2002, after receiving Ms. Parham's report, and in light of the concerns raised by statements of employees, Principal Whye requested that the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department (Department) conduct an investigation to determine whether food and supplies were being removed from the Liberty City cafeteria by the Respondent and her husband. The Investigation On March 6, 2002, the Department assigned the case to Detective Norman Santana to conduct a Preliminary Personnel Investigation. On March 13, 2002, Detective Santana interviewed Principal Whye, Samuel Woodside, and Margaret Lloyd, each of whom provided written statements confirming their previous observations regarding improprieties at the Liberty City cafeteria. Also on March 13, 2002, Detective Santana contacted Julio Miranda, District Director for Investigative Audits, to advise him of the ongoing personnel investigation. Mr. Miranda was already aware of the case and stated that he would conduct an audit investigation. On March 14, 2002, Detective Santana interviewed Ms. Parham, who provided him with her report and a written statement confirming the results of her comparison review, as well as the profit and loss statement for Liberty City's food service program. On March 28, 2002, Detective Santana interviewed Susan Keye, Assistant Principal at Liberty City. Ms. Keye provided a written statement regarding an incident in the fall of 2001, when Respondent reported to Principal Whye that a freezer had broken and food had spoiled; however, there was no verification that a report of the freezer malfunctioning had been made, nor any work order showing repair of the freezer. On April 24, 2002, Detective Santana met with Mr. Miranda who stated that through the audit investigative process, no investigative research was done. Also on April 24, 2002, Detective Santana interviewed several cafeteria workers at Liberty City: Eric Curtis, Barbara Jackson, Mildred Bennett, and Dorothy Paulk. Each provided written statements. Ms. Jackson and Ms. Bennett stated that they did not observe Respondent remove any food or supplies from the Liberty City cafeteria. Mr. Curtis and Ms. Paulk each stated to Detective Santana that they had at various times observed Respondent and her husband and her mother-in-law remove items from the Liberty City cafeteria. On June 7, 2002, Detective Santana filed Preliminary Personnel Investigation Report G14335. Incorporated in Detective Santana's report were the written statements of all the above-listed persons whom he interviewed, along with the profit and loss report prepared by Ms. Parham. The Preliminary Personnel Investigation Report G14335 concluded that a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 by Respondent was substantiated. Post Investigation Proceedings On September 26, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was conducted in order to address the findings against Respondent, set out in Preliminary Personnel Investigation Report G143335. In attendance at the conference-for-the-record were Frederic E. Conde, Executive Director; Essie S. Pace, Region Director, Region III Operations; Principal Whye; Herman Bain and Sonia Devoe, AFSCME representatives; and Respondent. The purpose of the conference for the record was to review the results of the investigation, the investigation's substantiation of Respondent's violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, and Respondent's future employment status with the School Board. At the conclusion of the conference for the record, Respondent was provided "the option of resignation, retirement and/or redirection" on or before November 8, 2002. On December 19, 2002, the School Board Superintendent sent Respondent a letter recommending her dismissal from employment with the School Board. On January 15, 2003, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent and initiate proceedings to dismiss her from employment. Respondent filed a timely notice contesting her dismissal. Notice of Specific Charges The essential factual allegations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges as stated in paragraph 9 allege that "Respondent had removed food and supplies from the cafeteria and allowed her husband to remove food and supplies from the cafeteria for the Respondent's personal use." Three counts are set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges. Count I alleges that "Respondent's removal of food and supplies from the worksite is considered conduct unbecoming a school employee, and constitutes just cause and a sufficient basis for Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to Articles II and XI, s. 4C of the AFSCME Contract, and pursuant to s. 1022.22(1)(f)(formerly s. 230.23(5)(f)),s. 1012.40 (formerly s.447.209, Fla. Stat. (2002)." Count II alleges that "Respondent's removal of food and supplies from the work site for her own personal use is considered non-performance and deficient performance of duties and constitutes just cause and a sufficient basis for Respondent's dismissal, pursuant to Articles II and XI, s.4C of the AFSCME Contract, and pursuant to ss 1022(1)(f)(formerly s. 230.23(5)(f), s. 1012.40 (formerly s. 231.3605), and s. 447.209, Fla. Stat. (2002)." Count III alleges that "Respondent's conduct, as set forth herein, constitutes conduct that failed to bring credit upon herself or the school system and is thereby conduct that is not in compliance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21." School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides in pertinent part, "All persons employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system." The Notice of Specific Charges seeks that Respondent's dismissal be sustained and that her employment with the School Board be terminated. Proof of Charges During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent's husband, Ernest Myles, regularly was observed on the Liberty City campus, and was specifically observed in the kitchen area of the cafeteria workplace. Mr. Myles was in the kitchen area of the cafeteria on a weekly basis, at least twice a week. During the same time period, Respondent's mother-in- law, Charlie Mae Myles, was also regularly observed on the Liberty City campus, and specifically in the kitchen area of the cafeteria workplace. Mrs. Myles was not as frequently observed in the cafeteria as her son. Neither Ernest Myles nor Charlie Mae Myles was authorized to be on the Liberty City campus. Neither Ernest Myles nor Charlie Mae Myles was authorized to be in the Liberty City kitchen area of the cafeteria workplace. Samuel Woodside, the head custodian at Liberty City, observed an increase in food and supplies being delivered to the cafeteria during the 2001-2002 school year, even though the number of students at the school had not increased. Mr. Woodstock, when questioned about the cafeteria, reported this to Principal Whye, who then contacted Ms. Parham. Mr. Woodside's observations were confirmed by Ms. Parham's comparative review contained in her profit and loss report filed with Principal Whye on March 4, 2002. The increases in food and supplies at Liberty City are not explained by transfer slips or other evidence showing that significant amounts of food and supplies were transferred out of Liberty City to other schools. Similarly, the increase in food and supplies at Liberty City is not explained by evidence of spoilage. Although Respondent told Principal Whye that the freezer had broken in the fall of 2001, there is no evidence of any repairs performed on the freezer to account for missing food due to spoilage. Dorothy Paulk has worked for the School Board for more than 29 years. Ms. Paulk is affectionately known at Liberty City as "Miss Dot," and attends the same church as the Respondent. Respondent and Ms. Paulk had a good working relationship. Ms. Paulk has no animosity toward Respondent and her testimony is deemed highly credible. Ms. Paulk observed Respondent remove items from the Liberty City cafeteria and spoke to Respondent regarding her taking items from the cafeteria prior to being interviewed by Detective Santana. Ms. Paulk also observed Respondent's husband remove some oil and other supplies from the Liberty City cafeteria. Ms. Paulk also stated that other employees, including herself, had removed items from the Liberty City cafeteria. Margaret Lloyd worked in several capacities at the Liberty City cafeteria during the 2001-2002 school year. Ms. Lloyd saw Respondent's husband and mother-in-law in the kitchen area of the cafeteria on numerous occasions. Ms. Lloyd did not have a good working relationship with Respondent, and in March of 2002 was reassigned from the cafeteria to work as a teacher's aide in the Liberty City pre-school program. Ms. Lloyd no longer works for the School Board, and testified that she holds no animosity toward Respondent. Ms. Lloyd observed Respondent and her husband, Ernest Myles, remove food and supply items from the Liberty City cafeteria including meats, fruits, food containers, and wrapping paper. Ms. Lloyd's testimony was consistent with her prior statements to Principal Whye, as well as her interview and handwritten statement provided to Detective Santana on March 14, 2002, and her typewritten statement of April 25, 2002, to the audit investigator, Mr. Miranda. Ms. Lloyd's testimony is deemed credible. The value of the food and supply items removed from the Liberty City cafeteria during the 2001-2002 school year by the Respondent and her husband was not established. Progressive Discipline On February 7, 2002, Respondent received a written memorandum from Principal Whye referencing a verbal warning Respondent had received regarding Respondent's absenteeism for the pay period in February 2, 2001, and Respondent's falsification of attendance records more than one year earlier. The memorandum further admonished Respondent for failing to be on duty and not notifying Ms. Keye. On March 7, 2002, Principal Whye issued a written memorandum from Principal Whye referencing a verbal warning Respondent had received for inappropriate behavior with Ms. Lloyd and another cafeteria worker. Both of these warnings to Respondent occurred after Principal Whye was aware of the reported improprieties in the cafeteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order sustaining the discipline of Debbie T. Darlington for just cause, and imposing a one-year suspension without pay and a demotion to food service worker. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S RICHARD A. HIXSON 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 24th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Wallace, Esquire Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Honorable Jim Horne Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Merrett R. Stierhelm, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue (1) Whether facts and circumstances demonstrate the existence, on August 20, 2019, of an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students of Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc.-5422 d/b/a "Championship Academy" ("Championship") justifying the immediate termination of its charter by the Broward County School Board ("School Board") pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c); and (2) whether the School Board formulated one or more agency statements that constitute unadopted rules, in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), and applied one or more of those unadopted rules as the basis for its agency action immediately terminating Championship's charter.1 1 Championship's rule challenge petition, as filed, also challenged an adopted School Board rule under section 120.56(3). This challenge was abandoned at the beginning of the final hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Championship is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that holds the charter for numerous charter schools throughout Florida, including in Broward County, Florida. Championship was the holder of the charter for Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was immediately terminated by the School Board on August 20, 2019.4 Pursuant to Article IX, section 4 of the Florida Constitution, the School Board is the political subdivision that operates, controls, and supervises all district public schools in Broward County, Florida.5 3 CS for CS Senate Bill 7030 (2019) substantially amended section 1006.12, Florida Statutes, regarding safe-school officers. This legislation was published as chapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) and has been codified in numerous Florida Statutes, including section 1006.12. 4 For purposes of this Final Order, including the stipulated facts, all references to "Championship" are to the Championship Academy of Distinction at Davie, Inc., the charter school for which the charter was terminated on August 20, 2019. 5 The School Board is an educational unit, as that term is defined in section 120.52(6), and, therefore is an "agency" for purposes of chapter 120. Pursuant to section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, the charter termination proceeding is conducted pursuant to sections 120.569 and In Florida, charter schools are nonsectarian public schools that operate pursuant to a charter contract with a public sponsor. § 1002.33(1), Fla. Stat. In this case, the School Board is the sponsor for Championship. Stipulated Facts At a regularly scheduled meeting, the School Board approved a renewal Charter School Agreement (the "charter"), dated April 5, 2016, with Championship. The charter became effective on July 1, 2016, for a term of five years. At a regularly scheduled meeting on August 20, 2019, the School Board voted to immediately terminate Championship's6 charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). As the basis for its action, the School Board concluded that the particular facts and circumstances indicated that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students existed on that date, due to Championship's failure to comply with and implement the requirements of section 1006.12, by failing to arrange for the assignment of one or more safe-school officers for the protection and safety of students, school personnel, and property, without interruption, during all school hours of every school day, and for repeatedly allowing a licensed security guard other than a safe-school officer to possess a firearm on Championship's campus in violation of section 790.115(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The School Board's notice of termination of the charter was delivered to Championship on August 22, 2019. The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for the students at Championship was Wednesday, August 14, 2019. Students attended classes at Championship on Wednesday, August 14, through and including Friday, 120.57(1). Additionally, pursuant to section 1001.41(2), Florida Statutes, the School Board is required to adopt its policies pursuant to the rulemaking procedure in section 120.54. 6 In the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the parties interchangeably refer to "Championship" and the "Charter School." For consistency, the stipulated facts in this Final Order are modified to refer to "Championship." August 16, 2019, and on Monday, August 19, through Thursday, August 22, 2019. Pursuant to section 1022.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes, the School Board assumed operation of Championship after it immediately terminated Championship's charter. On August 14, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 15, 2019, Championship had an armed security guard, rather than a safe-school officer pursuant to one of the four options authorized and required by section 1006.12, present on its campus. On August 14, 2019, Detra Adams observed a person sitting behind the front desk at the Charter School. Championship's principal, Todd Dupell, told her that that person was an armed guard. On August 15, 2019, starting at approximately 2:37 p.m., a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus. A police officer from the Davie Police Department was present on Championship's campus during all school hours on Friday, August 16, 2019; during all school hours on Monday, August 19, 2019; and during all school hours on Tuesday, August 20, 2019. On August 19, 2019, Broward County Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie, Leslie Brown, and School Board Deputy General Counsel Robert Vignola received a copy of an email dated August 16, 2019, from Davie Police Department Captain Christopher Chastain to Todd Dupell, stating, in part: We will meet with the Town Administrator Monday morning to finalize everything. In the interim[,] there will be an officer at your location on school days. We hope to have an approved agreement ready for signing by Monday afternoon which will provide you with what is being requested by the county. Runcie stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "I know, I think it was late on Thursday afternoon, and certainly on Friday when we checked, there was a full-time officer there from the City of Davie." Brian Katz, the School Board's Chief Safety, Security, and Emergency Preparedness Officer, stated the following regarding whether the Charter School was in compliance with section 1006.12, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: "as of today [August 20, 2019], they are." School Board member Nora Rupert stated the following regarding a written communication she received from the Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: The Mayor of Davie, Judy Paul, says there presently are Davie officers in the three Davie charter schools, and the executed agreement will be forwarded, specifically, Championship, excuse me, when completed today. We take care of our own, ["]we["] meaning their city. They've always been a very good, good partner with us. I asked if I could say this publicly, and she said yes. This is for the public record. I also forwarded it to the attorney, as well as the Superintendent the minute I received it, and just so my colleagues could have that information, I had to say it here. Vignola stated the following during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: If there's an officer there [at Championship] now and . . . if there is a representation from appropriate officials in the City [Town of Davie] that they see themselves as having a binding obligation to provide safe-school officer coverage with continuity, that goes to your threshold question of whether immediate termination is appropriate. The following exchange occurred between School Board member Laurie Rich Levinson and Vignola during the School Board meeting on August 20, 2019: Levinson: "So, Mr. Vignola, I know it's a difficult question, but legally, where are we? As of today, we are going to have an agreement with the Town of Davie that this school is covered, so as of today, we're not able to terminate a contract." Vignola: "If we get that representation from the city, I think that I would counsel voting against immediate termination." School Board member Donna Korn stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: "Do I believe that our decision will be overturned? Unfortunately, to the extent we have a very mixed message, I do." Vignola stated the following at the meeting of the School Board on August 20, 2019: Right now, today, they have, as I've been—it's been reported to me, they have a safe[-]school officer on campus today that would be compliant. As for what they have down the road, the law is not very clear as to an obligation. There's nothing in here that says have a contract in place. At an emergency meeting held on August 27, 2019, the School Board voted against immediately terminating its charter school agreement with The National Ben Gamla Charter School Foundation, Inc. ("Ben Gamla Charter School"), pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c), concluding that the particular facts and circumstances did not indicate that an immediate and serious threat to the health, safety, or welfare of that charter school's students existed on August 27, 2019. The School Board was aware, at its August 27, 2019, meeting that the security guard at the Ben Gamla Charter School campus was not a certified guardian pursuant to section 1006.12. School Board member Dr. Rosalind Osgood stated the following during the August 27, 2019, meeting of the School Board regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: It was a problem because there were not enough law enforcement officers in the whole state even available to meet the demands of the legislature, so we had to be very creative in the way that we made decisions to keep our kids in the traditional public schools safe[,] with requiring that they have military or law enforcement background and training, which again, we keep hearing limited the pool, but it's the . . . safest way that we can address it. Runcie stated the following during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, regarding the Ben Gamla Charter School: "[s]o I think they're [Ben Gamla Charter School] working to try to get to a point where they have a sustainable plan, but if they currently have a plan, no matter how short-term it is, and they're able to have a safe[-]school officer on campus, they're technically in compliance." Chief of the Plantation Police Department, W. Howard Harrison, stated during the meeting of the School Board on August 27, 2019, that the Plantation Police Department did not provide any officers for the campus of Ben Gamla Charter School on August 14 through 16, and August 26, 2019. A Plantation Police Department Officer was provided to Ben Gamla Charter School for half a day on August 19, 2019, and an officer from the Broward County Sheriff's Office provided coverage for August 27, 2019. The School Board did not designate, assign, or provide any safe-school officers at Championship for the 2019-2020 school year. Championship timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearings with the School Board, requesting an administrative hearing on the School Board's immediate termination of its charter. The School Board referred Championship's request for hearing to DOAH on September 11, 2019. Findings of Fact Based on Evidence at Final Hearing Safe-School Officer Statute In response to the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that occurred on February 14, 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, a portion of which is codified at section 1006.12, the statute titled "Safe-school officers at each public school." Certain provisions of section 1006.12 have given rise to the matters in dispute in these consolidated proceedings. School Board Communications and Actions Regarding Charter School Compliance with Section 1006.12 On or about March 8, 2019, the Florida Department of Education ("DOE") contacted the School Board, requesting information regarding the status of compliance, by all public schools in the Broward County Public Schools District ("District"), including charter schools, with the statutory requirement in section 1006.12 for a safe-school officer to be present at each school. The request set a March 22, 2019, deadline for each school in the District, including charter schools, to provide that information to DOE. The School Board contacted all charter schools in the District, requesting that they provide the information requested by DOE by March 22, 2019. Championship did not provide the requested information by that date. The amendments to section 1006.12 enacted as part of SB 7030 became law on May 8, 2019. On May 15, 2019, Katz conducted an informational meeting with charter school personnel to inform them of the requirements of newly- amended section 1006.12, and to provide instructions to upload compliance documentation into the Charter.Tools application. Dupell attended the meeting. On June 28, 2019, Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran sent a letter (the "Corcoran Letter") to the representatives of charter schools regarding compliance with newly-amended section 1006.12. The letter provided information regarding the options for meeting the requirement to have at least one safe-school officer present on campus while school is in session. The Corcoran Letter particularly addressed the expanded school guardian option codified at section 1006.12(3), and the new school security guard option codified at section 1006.12(4). The letter stated, in pertinent part: [E]very public elementary, middle, and high school in Florida, including all Florida charter schools, must have a Safe-School Officer (SSO) physically present on each campus while school is in session. . . . All charter schools without current [safe-school officer] coverage have until August 1 to come into compliance for the 2019-2020 school year For those charter schools that choose to treat our requests for information as optional, our only option going forward will be to use the full extent of the law to ensure compliance. On July 9, 2019, Katz and Leslie Brown, the School Board's Chief Portfolio Officer, issued a memorandum directed to the charter schools in the District. The memorandum stated: "[t]he statute requires each charter school to implement one of the safe-school officer options." The memorandum listed the options and explained that the first three options, with some legislative revisions, had been available to charter schools in the 2018-2019 school year. The memorandum further stated: [t]he School Board has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes." Citing the Corcoran Letter, the memorandum stated, in boldface type: If one of the Safe[-]School Officer options is not confirmed by your location by August 1st,[2019,]such facts and circumstances will be considered by your charter school sponsor to present an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of your charter school's students. Please be advised that, under those circumstances, the school district will request the School Board of Broward County, Florida, to "use the full extent of the law[,]" as urged by Commissioner Corcoran and immediately terminate your charter agreement pursuant to [s]ection 1002.33(8)(c), Florida Statutes. July 9, 2019, memorandum, Exhibit JE-4 (emphasis added). From this memorandum, it is apparent that the School Board interpreted the phrase "use the full extent of the law," as referenced in the Corcoran Letter, to mean immediately terminating a noncompliant charter school's charter. In so stating, the School Board was not merely following guidance set forth in the Corcoran Letter—which did not mention immediate termination of a charter as a sanction for noncompliance with section 1006.12—but, instead, was articulating its own sanction, which it would impose for noncompliance with section 1006.12.7 The memorandum further stated: "[p]lease upload into Charter.Tools, under the benchmark entitled Senate Bill 7030, the attached form and pertinent documentation that confirms that your implemented Safe[-]School Officer option is in compliance with [s]ection 1006.12, Florida Statutes, for the 2019-2020 school year. This documentation is due by August 1, 2019." On July 31, 2019, the School Board sent a follow-up email to the principals of the charter schools in the District, reminding them of the August 1, 2019, deadline. 7 To this point, in response to an email from Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie dated August 15, 2019, Corcoran counseled against immediate charter termination to sanction noncompliant charter schools, recommending instead that the District take immediate steps to provide safe-school officer coverage at a noncompliant charter school, followed by steps to ensure that the school maintained coverage and implemented a long term solution. The School Board conducted another meeting with charter school principals on August 1, 2019, at which Katz highlighted the four safe-school officer options available under section 1006.12, and reminded the charter school principals of the School Board's position that charter schools were solely responsible for establishing and assigning one or more safe-school officers for their campuses. Championship did not meet the August 1, 2019, deadline to upload the safe-school officer documentation into Charter.Tools. Katz testified at the final hearing that the School Board did not establish or assign any safe-school officers at any charter schools in the District, including Championship, in the 2019-2020 school year. Actions Taken by Championship Regarding Safe-School Officer Requirement in 2019-2020 School Year On Friday, August 2, 2019, Linda Williamson, office manager for Championship, emailed Lieutenant Patricia Ravine of the Davie Police Department regarding obtaining a school guardian while Championship's security guard was in training to become certified as a School Guardian. Ravine told her that the Broward County Sheriff's Office ("BSO") was in the process of developing the guardian program, and that the Davie Police Department had a contract with the School Board for all 13 of its school resource officers to be assigned to the 12 traditional public schools in Davie. Ravine suggested that Championship contact a security agency, and she also suggested, as an alternative to a temporary guardian, that Championship secure the services of a Davie Police Department private duty detail officer. On or about Friday, August 9, 2019, Championship submitted a Private Duty Detail Application ("Application") to the Davie Police Department, requesting private duty detail officer coverage for Championship from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for each school day, beginning on August 14, 2019, and ending on September 28, 2019. Private duty detail coverage consists of voluntary coverage by off-duty police officers whose presence is not guaranteed by the police department. To that point, the Application states, in pertinent part: "[e]very reasonable effort will be made to fill the detail request, but there is no guarantee that it will be filled. Members of the Davie Police Department, who are authorized to work Private Duty Detail, do so voluntarily during their off duty hours." The first day of the 2019-2020 school year for District schools, including Championship, was August 14, 2019. On August 14, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, and Championship did not have any other persons qualified under any of the safe-school officer options in section 1006.12 present on its campus that day. On August 14, 2019, Championship did have present on its campus an armed security guard, Steven Carbone, who Championship had hired to provide school safety services on its campus. Although Carbone had not yet completed the school guardian training program, he met the other safe-school officer requirements set forth in section 1006.23, including having completed a psychological evaluation which indicated that he was suitable for the position, and holding Class D and Class G licenses under chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Carbone was trained regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive devise recognition, and identification of hazardous materials. Detra Adams, Curriculum Supervisor of Secondary Literacy for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 14, 2019. She did not view a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12 on Championship's campus that day. However, she did observe a person at the front desk wearing a security uniform and bearing a firearm. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Adams met with Dupell, who told her that Championship had procured the service of an armed security guard (Carbone) who was present on campus that day. Dupell acknowledged that Championship had not submitted the required documentation to the District to have an armed security guard on campus. He told Adams that Carbone was registered for a school guardian training program8 and that once he completed the training, Championship would submit the certification documents to the District. Dupell also told Adams that Championship had arranged for a Davie private duty detail police officer to be present at the school on some, but not all, school days. On August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not send a private duty detail police officer to provide safe-school officer services to Championship, but did send an on-duty police officer who arrived shortly before the end of the school day. Donte´ Fulton-Collins, Director of the Charter Schools Management Support Department for the District, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, and did not observe a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on campus that day. However, she did observe an armed security guard on that date. That person ultimately was identified as Carbone. Katz, along with Damien Kelly of the DOE Safe Schools Office, visited Championship's campus on August 15, 2019, to discuss with Dupell the need for Championship to secure the services of a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12. At that meeting, Dupell provided documentation to Katz showing that Championship had filed the Application with the Davie Police Department, 8 On July 31, 2019, Championship entered into an agreement with the BSO to provide Carbone training to serve as a safe-school officer pursuant to the Aaron Feis School Guardian option under section 1006.12(3). The training course was only offered every three months, so when Carbone was hired to fill the safe-school officer position at Championship, the soonest he could obtain training by BSO was early September 2019, after the 2019-2020 school year had begun. requesting to have private duty detail officer coverage until Carbone could complete the training to satisfy the requirements for certification as a school guardian under section 1006.12(3). Dupell also provided Katz a list of dates for which Davie Police Department had signed up to provide private duty detail coverage at Championship between August 14 and September 28, 2019. Katz observed that for many of the shifts on school days during that period, no officers had signed up to provide coverage at Championship. In sum, for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 because it did not have present on its campus an individual who met the statutory requirements to serve as a safe-school officer. Championship does not dispute that it was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on those days. For the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, Championship did have an armed security guard, Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students. As discussed above, although Carbone had not yet been trained as a school guardian, he met the other requirements to be a school guardian. Pursuant to an electronic mail exchange between Championship and Ravine on the afternoon of August 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship's campus, for the full school day, on all the days requested in the Application for which no private duty detail officer had volunteered. Thus, by the afternoon of August 15, 2019, Championship had secured guaranteed police officer coverage from the Davie Police Department—albeit not pursuant to a fully-executed contract. Pursuant to this informal arrangement, a police officer from the Davie Police Department was present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus for the entire school day on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. On Wednesday, August 22, 2019, Championship and the Town of Davie, Florida, executed a Safe School Officer Agreement ("SSO Agreement") for a term commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. Article 2 of the SSO Agreement states, in pertinent part, T[own] shall assign a certified police officer to serve as a [Safe School Officer ("SSO")] at the charter school for a period not to exceed the school year [(sic)] to allow C[harter] to otherwise become compliant with the [c]hapter 2019-22, Laws of Florida (2019) . . . . The certified police officer assigned to the school will be working in an overtime capacity. There is no guarantee that the same officer will work at the school on a daily basis. The parties agree that this does not include any after[-]hours activities, sports programs, aftercare, etc. Assignment of SSOs. The Town may change the law enforcement officer assigned to participate as a[n] SSO at any time during the Agreement. Unless precluded by emergency circumstances, the T[own] shall at all times maintain an SSO on duty during those regular school hours. "Regular school hours" shall be defined as the respective [p]articipating school's posted bell schedule. Wherever possible, the T[own] shall assign a replacement SSO during the time that the assigned SSO is absent when students are required to be in attendance during regular school hours. Pursuant to the SSO Agreement, the Town of Davie guaranteed police officer coverage for Championship for every school day during regular school hours, commencing on August 14, 2019, and ending no more than 90 days later. This coverage was to be provided by private duty detail officers when available, and if no private duty detail officers were available, safe-school officer coverage would be provided by an on-duty police officer. Because the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019, and because no private duty detail officers had volunteered to provide safe-school officer coverage at Championship on August 14 and 15, 2019, the Davie Police Department did not provide coverage on those dates. However, as found above, pursuant to the informal arrangement for private duty detail coverage that Championship had made with the Davie Police Department on August 15, 2019, a Davie police officer was physically present and provided safe-school officer services on Championship's campus on August 16 and 19 through 22, 2019. Thereafter, the Davie Police Department provided safe-school officer services to Championship under the SSO Agreement for the rest of the 2019- 2020 school year, until all District schools were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Other School Safety Measures Taken by Championship Cynthia Dotson, Chief Executive Officer of the management company who provides services to small charter schools, including Championship, testified regarding the measures that Championship has implemented on its campus to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its students and staff. The Championship campus is located in a fenced facility within a small business park in a cul-de-sac. The school has one point of ingress and egress for the public, and additional means of ingress and egress for the provision of fire, life, and safety support services. Championship screens persons entering the campus through a software application used to determine whether that person has a criminal record. It also utilizes a video camera system to provide surveillance of the interior and exterior of the campus, an audio communication system consisting of an intercom system and walkie-talkies, and a software application through which faculty members can report suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities. Additionally, Championship has hired a retired SWAT team to train all of its employees to respond to active assailant situations on campus in order to mitigate any threat and prevent injury and loss of life. To this end, Championship conducts monthly code red drills in both the summer months and the school year. Before the 2017-2018 school year, Championship hired a school security guard, Yoan Herrera, to provide school safety services to its campus. Herrera became certified by the BSO on November 15, 2018, to serve as an Aaron Feis Guardian on Championship's campus.9 He provided those services to Championship until approximately mid-March 2019. After Herrera left his position, Championship retained the temporary services of the King Security Agency ("King") to provide school security services while it searched for a replacement school security employee. After an exhaustive search that yielded very few qualified applicants, Championship hired Carbone to fill the school security guard vacancy. Carbone had been an employee of King and had provided school security services to Championship during the last few months of the 2018-2019 school year. As noted above, Carbone's psychological evaluation indicated that he was suited for the position. Additionally, he had training regarding domestic and foreign terrorism, explosives, improvised explosive device recognition, and identification of hazardous materials, and he also held Class D and Class G licenses. After Championship hired Carbone, he was immediately enrolled in the Aaron Feis School Guardian certification program offered by the BSO. However, due to the high demand for such training and limited program 9 Notably, even though Herrera was present on Championship's campus while carrying a firearm for the entire 2017-2018 school year and a portion of the 2018-2019 school year, and for part of that time, provided school security services in a capacity other than as a safe- school officer pursuant to section 1006.12, no evidence was presented at the final hearing showing that the School Board considered Herrera's presence on Championship's campus as constituting a violation of section 790.115(2), warranting immediate termination of Championship's charter. offerings, Carbone was unable to begin the training before early September 2019. Thus, assuming he successfully completed the program, he would not have been certified as a school guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3) until October 2019. Ultimately, Carbone did not successfully complete the training program. Additionally, on August 19, 2019, Championship hired Andre Chambers to serve as a safe-school officer at its campus. At the time Chambers was hired, he already was certified as an Aaron Feis School Guardian pursuant to section 1006.12(3). He began providing safe-school officer services on Championship's campus in September 2019, and did so until all District schools, including Championship, were closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. School Board's Immediate Termination of Championship's Charter As a result of Championship's failure to have a safe-school officer meeting the requirements of section 1006.12 on its campus on August 14 and 15, 2019, School Board personnel prepared an agenda item recommending immediate termination of the Charter for consideration at the School Board's next regular meeting, scheduled for August 20, 2019. At the final hearing, Brown and Katz testified that the School Board determined that Championship's failure to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who met the requirements of section 1006.12, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students, which commenced on August 14, 2019, and continued through August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. Brown acknowledged that the School Board was aware that as of August 16, 2019, Championship had a police officer from the Davie Police Department physically present on its campus. She testified that this did not change the School Board's position that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare to Championship's students existed. As she put it: [t]he services were piecemeal, there was nothing that we could depend on, nothing had been established and nothing had been assigned. . . . There was no evidence that [having a Davie police officer on campus] was going to be the case as each—each minute or hour or day that was going to continue. Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interpreted section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer in order to meet the statute's requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. To this point, Katz testified that having a Davie Police Department police officer present on campus would not, by itself, meet the safe-school officer requirement, because an executed contract "establishing" the presence of the officer also is required by the statute. He stated: "I believe both things are necessary, the agreement and presence. A fully[-]executed contract and presence [J]ust to be clear, a contract that states that there will be coverage, not a contract that says there may be coverage."10 Katz and Brown also testified that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the responsibility solely on the charter school to secure a safe-school officer for its campus. To this point, Katz testified that the School Board has "always believed that they [charter schools] were responsible for . . . assigning or establishing a safe school officer for every one of their schools." 10 In the stipulated facts set forth above, Katz stated, in response to a question from a School Board member at the August 20, 2019, meeting, that if Championship had a law enforcement officer present on its campus on that day, it was in compliance with section 1006.12. At the final hearing, Katz testified at the final hearing that this statement assumed the existence of a fully-executed contract on that date. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that the SSO Agreement was not fully executed until August 22, 2019. Brown testified that the School Board views Florida law as prohibiting the District from assigning a safe-school officer to a charter school. To that point, she testified that if a charter school wished to secure the services of a school resource officer under section 1006.12(1) to meet the safe-school officer requirement, the charter school would have to directly contract with the law enforcement agency to do so.11 Further to this point, Katz testified that the School Board did not have the authority to assign a law enforcement officer whose services are contracted by the District to provide safe-school officer coverage on a charter school's campus.12 Both Brown and Katz testified that the School Board met the requirement in section 1006.12 to "collaborate with charter school governing boards to facilitate charter school access to all safe-school officer options available" by providing information, presentations, and training to charter schools regarding the statute's safe-school officer requirements and available options for meeting those requirements. Katz acknowledged at the final hearing that Championship having an armed security guard who was not a safe-school officer present on its campus to provide school security services did not pose an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship. Fulton-Collins testified that she assisted in preparing the School Board agenda item recommending the immediate termination of Championship's charter because, as she put it: 11 Section 1006.12(1), establishing the school resource officer option, states: "A school district may establish school resource officer programs through a cooperative agreement with law enforcement agencies." § 1006.12(1), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Notably absent from this provision is language authorizing charter schools to do so. 12 Section 1002.33(12)(a) states: "A charter school shall select its own employees. A charter school may contract with its sponsor for the services of personnel employed by the sponsor." § 1002.33(12)(a)(emphasis added). This provision appears to authorize a school board to contract with a charter school to establish or assign a safe-school officer at the charter school, pursuant to a partnership between the school board and a law enforcement agency or security agency as provided in the first sentence of section 1006.12. all charter schools must be in compliance with any requirements that the Legislature has deemed to be necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the students. The Legislature specifically found in section 1006.12 . . . that the establishment or assignment of a safe school officer on a charter school campus is necessary for the protection of school personnel, property, students, and visitors. And by failing to do so, failing to establish and assign a safe school officer on the campus, Championship created an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of its students. Fulton-Collins testimony, T. Vol. I, p. 192. Fulton-Collins acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that charter schools are responsible for establishing and assigning their own safe-school officers.13 However, she maintained that charter schools are solely responsible for establishing and assigning safe-school officers for their own campus, and that the School Board's duty is "not impeding [them] on any opportunity that they have to secure a safe-school officer." Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie confirmed that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as placing the sole responsibility on charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers. To this point, Runcie testified: " [j]ust as we [the District] go and secure [safe- school officers], by any means necessary, to have them on our campuses, [charter schools] are also required to go and use whatever means they can to secure them." Runcie also confirmed the School Board's position, articulated by Katz and Brown, that for charter schools to be in compliance with section 1006.12, a person meeting the requirements of one of the safe-school officer options 13 Notably, during the 2019 Legislative Session, the Legislature expressly rejected an amendment to SB 7030 that would have amended the first sentence of section 1006.12 to also require "charter schools, as applicable" to establish and assign one or more safe-school officers at its school facility. must be physically present on the school campus for the entire school day, and a fully-executed contract must exist, guaranteeing the presence of the safe-school officer on the campus each school day, for the full term of the contract.14 Runcie testified that the School Board interprets the terms "establish and assign" to require that both of these conditions be met for the charter school to be in compliance with section 1006.12. He acknowledged that section 1006.12 does not expressly state that a fully-executed contract is required for compliance with the statute.15 To this point, he testified: [t]he statute, itself, may not specify a contract. It says what you are required to do. And the reason why it doesn't specify a contract is that there are several means to do it. There are some school districts, like Miami, I believe Palm Beach may be similar, but there's a handful of them where they actually have their own police force. So they're not going to have a contract in order to meet that[.] So the legislation is not going to be that specific because there's varying ability in how school districts and charter schools go about securing safe- school officers. So it wouldn't have that . . . degree of specificity. Runcie testimony T., Vol. II, pp. 44-45. Further to this point, Runcie testified: It [(the statute)] doesn't specifically require that, but the—so, again, the statute speaks to multiple 14 Runcie testified that in the School Board's view, section 1006.12 does not require an executed long term contract, such as a school-year-long contract, securing safe-school officer services; rather, the School Board interprets the statute as requiring a fully-executed contract that guarantees continuous presence of a safe-school officer on campus for the duration of the contract's term, whatever that term is. 15 See paragraph 243, below. To the extent a statute does not specify the precise means by which it is to be implemented, rulemaking may be necessary in order for an agency to implement the statute. See § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. (defining "rule" as a statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule). avenues, multiple ways of securing a safe-school officer. A couple of those don't require a contract. Again, if you have your own police force or you're using an armed guardian. So, for example, we actually have some schools that we have put in our detectives from our school investigative unit when we needed to. So we have 15, 20 police officers, if you will. So some districts, their whole entire system, they have their own police department. Or you can hire an individual, put him through the guardian program, have them become certified. Outside of doing those two things you would actually have to have a contract or some types of established agreement, an arrangement to be able to fulfill that. Runcie testimony, T. Vol. II, pp. 58-59. The School Board terminated Championship's charter on August 20, 2019, because Championship did not have a safe-school officer present on its campus for the first two days of the 2019-2020 school year, and because as of August 20, 2019, Championship did not have a fully-executed contract with the Town of Davie guaranteeing the presence of a police officer to serve as a safe-school officer on Championship's campus; thus, the School Board considered these circumstances to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship, warranting immediate termination of the charter pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Safety-Related Circumstances on Championship's Campus in the 2019- 2020 School Year Three parents of students who attended Championship in the 2019-2020 school year testified regarding the safety-related circumstances on Championship's campus at the beginning of the school year leading up to the School Board's termination of Championship's charter on August 20, 2019. Specifically, Anne-Valerie Daniel-Laveus, the mother of three students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a teacher at Championship during that school year, testified that she observed a school security guard present at the school every day. In her experience as a teacher at Championship and as a mother whose children were enrolled there, she perceived conditions at Championship as being safe. To that point, no other parents or students relayed to her any concerns they had regarding safety at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on August 14 through 20, 2019. She was not aware of any incidents, threats, or weapons-related incidents having taken place at Championship at any time during the 2019-2020 school year. Sandra Acosta, the mother of a student enrolled at Championship, testified that she took her child to school daily during the 2019-2020 school year, that she always saw a security guard present on campus when she did so. She always felt that her child was safe at Championship, and that she was not aware of any incidents in which the safety of the students at Championship was threatened. Melissa Bustamante, the mother of two students enrolled at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year and a member of Championship's governing board since 2011, also testified regarding conditions at Championship during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Specifically, when she took her children to school, she always observed a security guard at the front of the school, which is the only publicly-accessible entrance to the school facility. She was not aware of any bomb threats, weapons threats, or trespassing by unauthorized persons on Championship's campus during the 2019-2020 school year, nor was she aware of any parents of Championship students having expressed concerns regarding safety-related matters at the school during the 2019-2020 school year. As a member of Championship's governing board, she verified that the school had secured the presence of a Davie police officer on campus before, and for some time after, the charter was terminated, and also had secured a school guardian (Chambers) to serve as a safe-school officer for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year. No evidence was presented showing that there were any actual or imminent threats or dangers to the health, safety, or welfare of the students at Championship on any school days between August 14 and 20, 2019. Additionally, no evidence was presented showing that the presence of Carbone, who had been hired by Championship specifically to provide school safety and security services and who provided those services, presented a threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019. To the contrary, the witnesses who observed Carbone testified that he was at the front entrance to the school performing his school protection duties. None of them testified that they perceived him as a threat or saw him threatening or endangering the students, and all of them testified that his presence was one reason they perceived Championship's school campus as being safe. Additionally, as noted above, Katz conceded at the final hearing that Championship's having an armed security guard on campus to provide school security services on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not present an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students. Championship's Standing The School Board took action on August 20, 2019, to immediately terminate Championship's charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). Although the School Board subsequently operated Championship for the 2019-2020 school year while these proceedings were pending, if the School Board were to prevail in Case No. 19-4818, Championship's charter would be permanently terminated and the charter school could no longer operate. Thus, the School Board's immediate termination of Championship's charter has caused Championship to suffer an immediate, direct injury that is within the scope of these proceedings, which are brought under sections 1002.33 and 1006.12. Additionally, as discussed below, the School Board applied unadopted rules to Championship in these proceedings to terminate its charter. Findings of Ultimate Fact Immediate Termination of Charter under Section 1002.33(8)(c) Championship's Noncompliance with Section 1006.12 did not Cause Immediate and Serious Danger to Its Students Pursuant to the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the School Board did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019, when it immediately terminated Championship's charter. The School Board contends that Championship's failure to have present on its campus a person who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019, coupled with its failure to have a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship by August 20, 2019, constituted an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting immediate termination of its charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(c). However, the School Board presented no evidence of any particular facts and circumstances showing that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students was in existence on August 20, 2019—whether due to Championship's failure to have a person on campus who met the statutory qualifications for serving as a safe-school officer plus a fully-executed contract securing the services of a safe-school officer for Championship, or for any other reason. To that point, there was no evidence presented showing that there were any threats or actions constituting a threat—such as bomb threats, trespassing by unauthorized persons, armed persons presenting a danger or threat, or any other circumstances on Championship's campus that existed on August 20, 2019—or on any other school day in the 2019-2020 school year, for that matter. To the contrary, Championship presented the testimony of three witnesses stating that to their knowledge, there had been no threat or danger whatsoever to Championship's students at any time during the 2019-2020 school year, including on the school days before and including August 20, 2019. Each of these witnesses was in a position to have personally known whether, or be informed if, there had been any actual, immediate threat or danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students. The very most that may be inferred from the evidence is that not having a person who was qualified as a safe-school officer on campus may have presented a potential threat to Championship's students on August 14 and 15, 2019. However, even such a potential threat—to the extent it may have existed—was substantially diminished by the presence of a trained, armed security guard who had been hired specifically to provide protection to the students, faculty, and staff on campus, and who had satisfied most of the requirements, including the psychological evaluation, to become certified as a school guardian. Further, starting on August 16, 2019, a Davie police officer was present and provided safe-school services on Championship's campus every day for the rest of the school year, including on August 20, 2019, when the School Board immediately terminated Championship's charter. There is no dispute that these law enforcement police officers met the qualifications expressly stated in section 1006.12 to serve as safe-school officers. Therefore, as of August 16, 2019, the only remaining ground for the School's Board's conclusion that an immediate and serious danger existed on Championship's campus warranting immediate termination of its charter was that a contract securing the guaranteed presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus had not yet been fully executed. However, no evidence was presented showing that Championship's failure to have a fully-executed contract for a safe-school officer constituted any danger—much less an immediate and serious danger—to its students. Accordingly, there was no factual or circumstantial basis for finding that an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students existed on August 20, 2019, when its charter was terminated. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019, as a result of Championship not having a safe-school officer on August 14 and 15, 2019. Additionally, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence failed to establish the existence of an immediate and serious danger to Championship's students on August 20, 2019 (or on August 14 through 16, and 19, 2019), as the result of Championship not yet having secured a fully- executed contract guaranteeing the presence of a safe-school officer on Championship's campus. Presence of Armed Security Guard Did Not Constitute an Immediate and Serious Danger As previously discussed, no evidence was presented showing that Carbone presented any threat or danger to the students at Championship on August 14 through 16, 19, or 20, 2019. The witnesses who observed him on those days testified that he performed his school protection duties, and he did not threaten or endanger Championship's students. Additionally, the evidence establishes that the school security and protection services that Carbone provided on Championship's campus on these days were school-sanctioned activities. To that point, Championship hired Carbone for the specific purpose of providing school security services to its students. As such, Carbone was given express permission by Championship's governing board to be on campus specifically to provide school security services to enable and support school-related activities. Based on the foregoing, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the presence of the armed security guard on Championship's campus on August 14 through 16, 19, and 20, 2019, did not constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship's students warranting the immediate termination of its charter under section 1002.33(8)(c). Unadopted Rules Applied to Championship to Terminate Charter Section 120.57(1)(e)1. states, in pertinent part: "[a]n agency or administrative law judge may not base agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule." This provision prohibits an ALJ or an agency from basing agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party on an unadopted rule. Because this statute is directed at, and specifically circumscribes, the authority of the ALJ, or the agency, as applicable, neither the ALJ nor the agency is authorized to base agency action on an unadopted rule, regardless of whether a party has alleged that a particular agency statement constitutes an unadopted rule. The evidence establishes that in immediately terminating Championship's charter, the School Board determined Championship's substantial interests based on two unadopted rules. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1002.33(8)(c) The evidence shows that the School Board has determined that the failure of a charter school (in this case, Championship) to have, on campus, a safe-school officer who meets the requirements of section 1006.12, to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students, warranting immediate termination of the school's charter. In so determining, the School Board has interpreted section 1002.33(8)(c)—specifically, the first sentence of that statute16—to define a charter school's failure to comply with section 1006.12 as per se constituting an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the school's students. This interpretation ascribes a meaning to the first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) that is not readily apparent from the literal reading of the statute. Indeed, the first sentence of that section specifically speaks to the "particular facts and circumstances" showing that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists. Thus, the statute's plain language requires that the particular facts and circumstances of each particular case be considered to determine whether those particular facts and circumstances constitute an immediate and serious danger that exists at the time the charter is immediately terminated. Nowhere does the statute's plain language speak to, or authorize, a school board to formulate a categorical determination that a defined set of facts and circumstances—here, noncompliance with section 1006.12—per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the charter school's students. It is indisputable that the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. This interpretation requires a charter school to comply with section 1006.12—including all of the interpretive gloss the School Board has placed on that statute by imposing the requirement that a fully-executed safe-school officer contract be in place to be in compliance—or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such noncompliance. 16 The first sentence of section 1002.33(8)(c) states: "[a] charter may be terminated immediately if the sponsor sets forth in writing the particular facts and circumstances indicating that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students exists." § 1002.33(8)(c), Fla. Stat. The evidence also establishes that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1002.33(8)(c) to determine that a charter school's noncompliance with section 1006.12 per se constitutes an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the charter school's students is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Championship student's was in existence on August 20, 2019, such that its charter must be terminated. Unadopted Rule Interpreting Section 1006.12 The evidence also establishes that the School Board interprets section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate safe-school officer entity, guaranteeing that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract.17 Nowhere in the plain language of section 1006.12 is there an express requirement for a charter school to have a fully-executed contract for safe- school officer services in order to be in compliance with the statute. Thus, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 imposes a requirement that is not apparent from the literal reading of the statute. 17 Runcie, Katz, and Brown each testified that a fully-executed contract is necessary for a charter school to meet the statutory requirement that a safe-school officer be "established and assigned" to the school. This interpretation of section 1006.12 requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. Specifically, it requires a charter school to either have a fully-executed contract for safe-school officers in place by the time school is in session, or face having its charter immediately terminated on the basis of such alleged noncompliance. The evidence also shows that the School Board uniformly applies this interpretation of section 1006.12 to all charter schools in the District. Therefore, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 as requiring a charter school to have in place, at the time the school is in session, a fully-executed contract with an appropriate entity that guarantees that a safe-school officer will be present on the school's campus for the entire school day for the specified term of the contract, is a rule. This interpretation has not been adopted as rule pursuant to section 120.54, and, thus, constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20). The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship to determine that Championship was not in compliance with section 1006.12 on August 20, 2019, such that an immediate and serious danger to its students was in existence on that date, warranting immediate termination of its charter. Alleged Unadopted Rules Challenged under Section 120.56(4) Championship alleges that in immediately terminating its charter, the School Board has formulated and applied two agency statements which constitute unadopted rules. As articulated in the Rule Challenge Petition, these statements are: "[T]he School Board's unadopted policy that it is not legally required to provide safe-school officers to charter public schools within its borders"; and "[T]he School Board's policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." Each of these alleged unadopted rules is separately addressed. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board is not Legally Required to Provide Safe-School Officers to Charter Schools in the District The School Board takes the position that it is not required by section 1006.12 to establish or assign safe-school officers to charter schools in the District, and that the responsibility for securing a safe-school officer for a charter school rests solely with the charter school itself. To this point, the School Board contends that the only circumstance under which it ever would be required to assign a safe-school officer to a charter school is if it denied the charter school access to a safe-school officer—which the School Board claims means actively preventing a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, and then declares it has not done so.18 As more fully discussed below, the School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 ascribes a meaning to the statute that is not readily apparent from a reading of the statute's plain language. Further, the School Board's interpretation requires compliance and has the force and effect of law because it directs charter schools to secure their own safe-school officers and imposes the penalty of charter termination for failure to do so. . The School Board's interpretation of section 1006.12 is applied to every charter school in the District, and, thus, is a statement of general applicability. Therefore, the School Board's statement that it is not required to establish and assign safe-school officers to charter schools except when it has affirmatively prevented a charter school from securing a safe-school officer, is an unadopted rule. 18 The July 9, 2019, memorandum from Brown and Katz to charter school principals states, in pertinent part: "The School Board of Broward County has taken no action to deny any charter school access to any of the safe-school officer options summarized above and more fully detailed in [s]ection 1006.12." The School Board applied this unadopted rule to Championship such that it did not assign a safe-school officer to its campus for the 2019-2020 school year. This led to the School Board determining Championship noncompliant with section 1006.12 and immediately terminating its charter on that basis. Alleged Unadopted Rule that School Board has a Policy of Failing to Collaborate to Facilitate Charter School Access to Safe-School Officers Championship also alleges that "the School Board has a policy of failing to collaborate with charter schools to facilitate access to safe-school officers pursuant to section 1006.12. . . by directing charter schools to either comply with the statute or risk having their charters terminated." By casting the alleged agency statement in these terms, Championship effectively asserts that by not establishing and assigning safe- school officers to charter schools, the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools in direct contravention of the second sentence in section 1006.12. The evidence does not show that the School Board has a policy of "failing to collaborate" with charter schools—which would be tantamount to the School Board having a policy of purposefully violating the statute. Rather, as more fully discussed below, the evidence shows that the School Board interprets the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" to mean that it is only required to communicate with charter schools and inform them regarding the safe-school officer requirements of section 1006.12, and to require them to provide documentation showing compliance.19 Championship disputes the correctness of this interpretation, and contends that instead, this phrase means that the School Board must 19 Championship has not challenged the School Board's interpretation of the phrase "collaborate to facilitate" as an unadopted rule in this proceeding. establish and assign a safe-school officer to each charter school if the charter school so chooses.20 Based on the evidence, and for the reasons more fully discussed below, it is determined that the School Board's alleged policy of "failing to collaborate" to facilitate charter school access to safe-school officers is not an unadopted rule. The School Board did not present evidence showing that to the extent the alleged agency statements constituted rules, rulemaking was not feasible or practicable, as provided in section 120.54(1)(a)1. and 2.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner 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 employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
The Issue Whether Respondent, between August, 1975 and May 26, 1976, committed acts constituting misconduct in office and immorality, as set forth in the letter to him dated June 10, 1976, from L. Linton Deck, Jr. This proceeding involves allegations against the Respondent, a teacher employed in the public schools, by the School Board of Orange County, Florida. By letter of May 26, 1976, the Superintendent of schools for Orange County informed the Respondent that he was relieved of duty pending an investigation into allegations made by students concerning possible improper conduct with a student or students. After an investigation into the allegations, the Superintendent formally charged him with misconduct in office and immorality and suspended him, with pay, pursuant to Section 231.36 and 230.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent requested a public hearing concerning the allegations on June 14, 1976. The school board requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings provide a hearing officer for this purpose by letter from its counsel, dated June 21, 1976.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed in the public school system of Orange County in 1972. At the start of the academic year 1975-76, he was a teacher of mathematics at the Union Park Junior High School. In December, 1925, he transferred to the new Liberty Junior High School. Students whom he had taught in the eighth grade at Union Park also were transferred to the new school. During the course of the aforesaid year, the following incidents took place at the schools involving the Respondent and certain of his eighth grade students: Patricia Renee Riggs - In September, 1975, Riggs was sitting at a desk in the front of Respondent's homeroom conducting voting procedures for student school officers. Respondent, who was sitting on the corner of the desk, took away her pen. She asked for it and he pinched her on the arm. She pinched him back. Riggs testified that Respondent then said, "Do you want me to pinch you down there?" (See Finding No. 6) In February, 1976, Riggs asked the Respondent for assistance with her course work while in the classroom. He put his hand on her shoulder and she backed away. He walked toward her and pushed her shoulder and she fell in a trash can. Also during the second term, on one occasion while Riggs was in the back of the classroom, and after having made a facetious remark to Respondent, he put his hands on her shoulders and pinned them back onto a nearby desk. Another time during the second term, she asked the Respondent for assistance after class. He told her to "Come at 2:00 and we will finger it out." During March or April, 1976, while Riggs was in the lunch line at school, Respondent approached her, placed his hands under her arms and moved her aside. The above incidents made Riggs uncomfortable to be in Respondent's class. (Testimony of Riggs) Debra S. Muns - During the first semester at Union Park Junior High School, Muns was wearing a beaded shirt in the classroom one day. Another student asked Respondent to feel the shirt. Muns testified that Respondent stated, "That's not all I would like to feel." (See Finding No. 6) During the second semester, after arriving in the classroom from a visit to an orthodontist, Muns remarked to the Respondent that her teeth were hurting her. Respondent put his hands on her shoulders and said, "I know a good way to make them stop hurting," or words to that effect. Also during the second semester, while Muns was looking at a poster on the classroom wall, Respondent placed his hands on the wall above her and, although not touching her, effectively pinned her against the wall. At this time he made a statement concerning tutoring her after class to the effect that he didn't have only work in mind. His actions made her feel uncomfortable. (Testimony of Muns) Lisa Fox - On several occasions during the school year, while asking for assistance with classroom work, Respondent came to her desk and placed his arm on her back and sometimes rubbed her back while assisting her. This bothered her and made her feel uncomfortable. Fox tried to get transferred from Respondent's class early in the year because it was disruptive and she was not doing well in mathematics. She also complained about the class being noisy on several other occasions. (Testimony of Fox) Penny Seifert - At various times during the school year, Seifert asked for assistance in her work and Respondent knelt by her desk and sometimes placed his hand on her back and rubbed it. On several occasions when Respondent was helping her with mathematics after the regular school period, he pulled up a chair to her desk on the side where she could not get out and rubbed her back. During the second semester she stayed after class once to ask Respodent a question and he attempted to back her into a corner of the classroom. She pushed him in the stomach to move him aside. These events bothered her and made her feel uncomfortable. Once she kissed him on the cheek to be "friendly" with him. (Testimony of Seifert) Virginia Niemensky - In May, 1976, this student was erasing the blackboard in the classroom. She tripped and the eraser flew out of her hand and hit the Respondent in the head. He retrieved it, put chalk on it, and started placing it in her hair. After asking him to stop, Respondent wrestled her to the floor, pinned her arms with his knees and proceeded to place chalk on her clothes. Mary Atkisson - At various times during the year, Mary purchased pencils from the Respondent. At such times, she would hand him a nickel and he would try to hold her hand. During the last half of the second semester she asked the Respondent for assistance with a mathematics problem. He came back to her desk, knelt by the open side and kept "scooting over" toward her to the point where she crawled out over the closed side of her desk to avoid him and left the classroom. On another occasion during the second semester, Mary was having a conversation with two other students, Teresa Skipper and Danny Smith. Teresa had stated that she was cold. Respondent heard the conversation and said to Teresa and Danny, "Why don't you two warm up." Danny responded, "Me warm up with you?" Respondent replied, "It is not my week for boys." During the second semester, Mary was once in the classroom before the other students arrived and asked the Respondent, "Why is it cold here?" He responded, "Because it encourages my favorite body contact sport." Respondent told a joke during class in which he asked if the students had heard the joke about the constipated mathematician who had to work it out with a pencil. During the latter part of the second semester, she told Respondent that she had made a mistake in a mathematics problem and he said, "In doing that, you did it right, because, you know, you are beautiful and I love you." When she later asked him what he meant by the statement, he said, "Pelly, I love my students in every Christian sense of the word." She was upset by this and the "scooting" incident. (Testimony of Atkissan) Mary O'Connell - During the second semester, Mary went to the front of the classroom to ask Respondent if he would move her seat in the classroom. Respondent took her wrist and laid her backwards against a desk. On another occasion, she was sitting at her desk and raised her hand to ask Respondent a question. He came to her desk and she asked him if she could go to another classroom. While she asked him, he pinched the skin on her arm. This bothered and upset her. (Testimony of O'Connell) Beverly Young - In May, 1976, Beverly called the Respondent to her desk to assist her with her work. He bent down beside her desk and while responding to her question, rubbed her back. She told him that Lisa Fox had given a cold to her and that he would have to get on her for doing so. Respondent answered, "I will get on to her but not for giving you a cold," or words to that effect. He also asked her if she would share her cold with him or give it to him. The incident made her uncomfortable, although they were joking at the time. (Testimony of Beverly Young). Teresa Skipper - In May, 1976, Teresa requested that Respondent help her with her work. He came back to her desk, assisted her, and whispered "Do you understand?" She replied, "Yes, sir." Then she felt his tongue touch her ear whereupon she asked him to leave her alone. The incident upset and disturbed her. (Testimony of Skipper) In the latter part of January, 1976, Joyce Krapf, guidance counselor at Liberty Junior High school, received a call from Renee Riggs' mother complaining about "off color" remarks made by Respondent in the class and asking her to speak to Renee about the situation. During approximately the same period, an English instructor in the school, who taught a number of the same students who were in Respondent's classes, became aware of certain of the incidents involving Respondent by conversations of students in his classroom. He made the guidance counselor aware of this information. She talked to several of the girls and then reported the information to the school principal. As a result, the principal talked to some of the students and then, in February, called the Respondent into his office for a conference. He specifically mentioned the remark Respondent was alleged to have made during the "blouse" incident and complaints of having put his arms around the students at their desk, and warned him that he should exercise care in the future to avoid having physical contact with the students or making remarks that would embarrass them or which could be misinterpreted by them. He further stated that if any other such incidents were reported, he would have to ask for a full investigation and that therefore Respondent should make every effort not to be placed in a situation where he could be accused of improper conduct. Respondent said that he would do the best he could to avoid such problems in the future. Toward the end of the school year, the guidance counselor brought to the principal's attention the alleged incident involving Teresa Skipper. The principal again talked to the Respondent, informed him of the complaint and gave him the option of resigning his position or requesting an investigation. Respondent chose the latter course of action. (Testimony of Boyte, Krapf, Dominey) Respondent is an excellent teacher of mathematics and goes out of his way to assist students and other teachers alike. He enjoys a fine reputation as an academician and for good character in the community in which he lives. (Testimony of Boyte, Way, Dominey, Gary, Bloxsom, Case) On May 28 and July 21, 1976, Respondent voluntarily underwent polygraph examinations concerning certain of the incidents forming the basis of the charges against him. During these examinations, he specifically denied touching or placing his tongue in the ear of Teresa Skipper. Concerning his alleged statement regarding Debra Muns' blouse, he claimed he had said "If I did [touch her blouse], I would touch more than that," rather than "That's not all I would like to feel." He further denied stating to Renee Riggs, "Do you want me to pinch you down there?" Although conceding that he had made certain of the other statements and engaged in certain of the actions complained of, he denied any sexual intent or desire on his part. It was concluded by the polygraph examiner that Respondent had not attempted deception in any of his statements or responses and therefore was telling the truth. (Testimony of Levy, Respondent'S Exhibit l; Stipulation) Upon entering the teaching profession in Orange County, Florida, Respondent signed a statement acknowledging that he had read the Code of Ethics of The Education Profession. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The Respondent testified as a witness and denied stating to Biggs, "Do you want me to pinch you down there?" There was no corroboration of Riggs' testimony in this regard, even though another student was nearby at the time. In view of this fact and the delay in reporting the alleged remark to school authorities, it is found that the making of the alleged statement was not established. In like manner, due to the absence of corroboration and the delay in reporting the remark, it is found that Respondent's version of the statement that he made to Muns, i.e., "If I did [touch her blouse], I would touch more than that," is accepted rather than the alleged statement, "That's not all I would like to feel." However, his denial of touching Teresa Skipper's ear with his tongue is not accepted in the light of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Respondent sought to explain various other of his statements and actions directed to his students by asserting that, in most instances, they were designed to create warmth or rapport. Hence, the telling of the joke concerning the mathematician and his use of the term "finger it out." With regard to the scooting incident involving Mary Atkisson he stated, "when she first moved away, I shouldered up to her to just tease her more about it..." His explanation for putting his arms around students at their desks was that when he would kneel to help them with their problems, he had to grasp the back of the chair in order to keep his balance. He admitted, however, that he occasionally patted tbe students on the back for encouragement. His explanation for the statement concerning after school tutoring, that he "had more than work in mind," was designed to tell the students that mathematics could be fun and was not all work. As to the lunch line incident with Riggs, he claimed that she had blocked his progress in the line and that he first said, "Excuse me," and then put his hands on her waist and moved her aside. He further claimed that some of the statements and incidents were precipitated by the students themselves and that he was merely attempting to restore order and get on with the classroom work. The evidence bears out the foregoing explanations and they were accepted as credible. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That Respondent Robert Gay Ridgeway be dismissed from employment as an instructor with the Orange County public school system for misconduct in office and immorality, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Bowen, Esquire Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 James W. Markel, Esquire Markel and Scott Post Office Box 1991 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert Gatton, Esquire Johnson, Motsinger, Trismen & Sharp 100 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Alan Todd, Esquire 180 Park Avenue North Post Office Box 986 Winter Park, Florida 32289
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, whether such conduct provides the School District of Palm Beach County with "just cause" to take disciplinary action against Respondent pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent's Teacher Certification Respondent is a teacher by profession. She holds a certificate (Certificate Number 618674) issued by the Florida Department of Education certifying that she is eligible to teach in the State of Florida in the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, ESOL, and exceptional education (specific learning disabilities, emotionally handicapped, and mentally handicapped). The certificate's "validity period" is July 1, 1993, through June 30, 1998. Respondent's Employment History Respondent has been employed by the School District since August of 1987. She holds a professional services contract. She is currently under suspension (without pay) pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding. For the duration of her employment with the School District, Respondent has held an instructional position at Forest Hill Elementary School (Forest Hill), the principal of which, since the 1988-89 school year, has been Linda Hardy. During her early years at Forest Hill, Respondent taught emotionally handicapped students. Having to deal with these special-need students, however, became too stressful for her. She therefore was moved to the regular education program at the school and served as a regular fifth grade classroom teacher until her removal from the classroom in November of 1996 when the school administration learned of the criminal conduct in which she had engaged the month before (that is described in the Administrative Complaint). Respondent's Classroom Performance Respondent's classroom performance at Forest Hill was erratic. Principal Hardy had various informal conferences with Respondent during which she identified for Respondent those areas of Respondent's performance in which improvement was needed. Respondent's performance in these areas would improve and reach a satisfactory level following each conference, but only for a limited period of time, after which it would decline again, thereby necessitating the convening of another conference. As Principal Hardy stated in her testimony at the final hearing, Respondent's performance was "like a roller coaster." Respondent nonetheless received an overall satisfactory rating on every annual written evaluation she was given while at Forest Hill. There were, however, on each of these evaluations, "areas of concern" noted.1 These "areas of concern" primarily involved Respondent's interaction with students, parents and colleagues. Respondent's Prior Disciplinary Record Prior to her removal from the classroom in November 1996, the only discipline she had received was a written reprimand for failing to timely submit lesson plans and other paperwork. Respondent's Rejection of the Suggestion to Participate in the Employee Assistance Program Particularly during the latter part of the period that she served as a regular classroom teacher, Respondent had difficulty coping with the stress she was experiencing in both her professional and personal lives. Principal Hardy, in whom Respondent had confided about these problems, suggested on more than one occasion that Respondent utilize the services of the School District's Employee Assistance Program. Respondent declined to follow Principal Hardy's suggestions. She advised Principal Hardy that it was unnecessary for her to seek assistance from the Employee Assistance Program since she was "seeing her own doctor" to help her with these problems. The Granting of Respondent's Request for Extended Leave By letter dated November 8, 1995, which read, in pertinent part, as follows, Respondent requested an extended leave of absence from her position with the School District: Effective 11-8-95, I am requesting a temporary leave of absence from my fifth grade teaching position at Forest Hill Elementary School (0621). At the present time it would be in the best interest of my students if I take a temporary leave of absence. During this temporary leave of absence I will be under the care of Doctors Jeanne Yetz [and] Mark Ellinger . . . . Respondent was granted a leave of absence from November 8, 1995, until January of 1996. Respondent's Mental Health Dr. Mark Ellinger is a clinical psychologist who has been treating Respondent (using psychotherapy) since August of 1994, for problems relating to mood, interpersonal relations, and substance abuse and dependence. Dr. Ellinger's treatment has been supplemented by medication (to reduce anxiety and for depression) prescribed by a psychiatrist, Dr. Jeanne Yetz. Over the period of time that she has been treated by Drs. Ellinger and Yetz, Respondent's condition has worsened. Dr. Ellinger's original diagnosis, at the time treatment began, was depressive disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified), a very mild disturbance. His secondary diagnosis was post-traumatic stress disorder. (Respondent related to Dr. Ellinger that, during her childhood, she had been sexually molested and verbally and physically abused.) More recently, in October of 1997, Dr. Ellinger determined that Respondent was suffering from major depression recurrent, borderline personality disorder, and cannabis dependence (in partial remission). Major depression recurrent is the most severe form of depression. Borderline personality disorder is also a very serious mental illness. It can extend over a lifetime and is difficult to treat effectively. Persons with borderline personality disorder struggle to control their anger and rage and to act appropriately, particularly in their dealings with others. As a result, they have difficulty maintaining stable interpersonal relationships. Cannabis dependence is a maladaptive pattern of marijuana use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. It is more serious than cannabis abuse, which, unlike cannabis dependence, involves merely periodic, rather than ongoing, marijuana use. On November 5, 1997, Dr. Ellinger filled out a Functional Capacities Evaluation form (FCE Form) describing Respondent's abilities in the following areas: Ability to relate to other people; Restriction of daily activities, e.g. ability to attend meetings, socialize with others, attend to personal needs, etc.; Deterioration of personal habits; Constriction of interests; Understand, carry out, and remember instructions; Respond appropriately to supervision; Perform work requiring regular contact with others; Perform work where contact with others will be minimal; Perform tasks involving minimal intellectual effort; Perform intellectually complex tasks requiring higher levels of reasoning, math and language skills; Perform repetitive tasks; Perform varied tasks; Makes independent judgment; Supervise or manage others; Perform under stress when confronted with emergency, critical, unusual or dangerous situations; or situations in which working speed and sustained attention are make or break aspects of the job; and Ability to work relative to the attached job description. Dr. Ellinger indicated on the FCE Form that Respondent had a "mild" impairment ("[s]uspected impairment of slight importance which does not affect functionality ability") in areas 3, 11, and 12; a "moderate" impairment ("[i]mpairment affects but does not preclude ability to function") in areas 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10; and a "moderately severe" impairment ("[i]mpairment significantly affects ability to function") in areas 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16.2 Dr. Ellinger sent the completed FCE Form to the "claims advisory agent" representing the insurance company with whom Respondent had filed, in May of 1997, after the initiation of this disciplinary proceeding, a claim seeking disability insurance benefits. Dr. Ellinger also completed and sent to the "claims advisory agent" a Mental Status Supplemental Questionnaire (Questionnaire), in which he stated, among other things, the following: She [Respondent] continues to struggle with the above listed problems [problems relating to mood, substance abuse and interpersonal relations] and those have gone on for years. Mood is intermittently depressed, anxious and irritable. Thinking processes are intact with some moderate deficit due to mood disorder and stress of medical problems. Intelligence is normal. Perception shows some deficits and judgment has been poor in recent past evidenced by legal problems. Behavior has been impulsive and aggressive. He also indicated in the completed Questionnaire that one of Respondent's "treatment goals" was to "develop [a] new career due to [her] disability." It is important for Respondent to "develop [a] new career" inasmuch as her deep-rooted and severe mental health problems have significantly impaired her ability to function effectively as a classroom teacher.3 Respondent's Relationship with the Scrivos In 1996, Respondent moved into an apartment building on Seapine Way (Seapine Apartments) in Greenacres, Florida. Living in the apartment directly beneath Respondent's was the Scrivo family: Joseph, Sr. (Joe); his wife Dana; and their children, Joseph, Jr., and Gianna. Joseph, Jr., and Gianna are now three and eight years of age, respectively. Gianna is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a student at Forest Hill. After moving into the Seapine Apartments, Respondent began to socialize with the Scrivo family and became friends with Dana. Respondent, however, did not get along well with Joe. Joe said things to Respondent that Respondent considered to be insulting. She also suspected that Joe was the person who was leaving the pornographic material she started to find at her front door in the morning. (In fact, Joe was not the culprit.) The Scrivos' Separation In the summer of 1996, Joe and Dana had marital problems. As these problems escalated, Joe began to secretly tape record Dana's telephone conversations at home. With Respondent's assistance, Dana discovered that Joe was making these tape recordings. On August 7, 1996, Joe and Dana separated. Dana and the children remained in the Seapine Way apartment. Joe moved into a trailer located at 6074 South 16th Way in West Palm Beach. Dana obtained a restraining order against Joe. The restraining order prohibited Joe from having contact with Dana, except to the extent that such contact was necessary for Joe and Dana to discuss and to tend to the needs of their children. Dana made Respondent aware of the fact that she had obtained a restraining order against Joe. Joe's October 23, 1996, Visit to the Seapine Apartments Gianna had trouble dealing with her parents' separation. On the evening of October 23, 1996, Gianna was particularly upset. Dana telephoned Joe and told him that she wanted to speak to him in person about Gianna. Later that evening, Joe drove to the Seapine Apartments to meet with Dana. Respondent saw Joe in his van outside the apartment building. She telephoned the police and reported to them that Joe was on the grounds of the Seapine Apartments in violation of a restraining order that had been issued against him. When the police arrived on the scene, Joe and Dana were in Joe's van talking to one another. The police questioned Joe and then spoke to Dana. Dana told the police that she had requested the meeting with Joe to talk to him about the emotional problems their daughter was experiencing. She further informed the police that the restraining order did not bar Joe from meeting with her to discuss such a matter. The police left without taking any action. The Vandalizing of Respondent's Car The following afternoon, Thursday, October 24, 1996, Joe left town to visit his aunt in Key West, Florida. Sometime after Joe left town, during the evening of October 24, 1996, or the morning of October 25, 1996, before approximately 7:45 a.m., the front of the exterior of Respondent's automobile was damaged while the automobile was parked in the parking lot outside her apartment. It appeared to Respondent, who discovered the damage at approximately 7:45 a.m. on October 25, 1996, as she was about to get into her car and drive to work, that someone had thrown paint remover on the car. Respondent reported the damage to the police and then drove to work. After work she went to a body shop to obtain an assessment of the damage that had been done to her automobile. She then returned home. The "Trashing" of Joe's Trailer and the Theft and Use of Joe's Credit Cards From the time she returned home until the early morning hours of Sunday, October 27, 1996, Respondent remained awake and stewed about what had been done to her car. She felt as if she had been "violated." The more she thought about it, the more upset and angrier she became. Although she was experiencing these negative feelings, Respondent believed that there was no immediate need to seek the assistance of Dr. Ellinger, with whom she had an appointment scheduled for the following week. She thought that this situation "was something that [she] could actually work through" herself. As it turned out, she was wrong. Respondent erroneously believed that it was Joe who had damaged her automobile and she decided to get even with him by doing damage to his possessions. She knew that Joe was out of town, so, during the early morning hours of Sunday, October 27, 1996, she drove to Joe's trailer with the intention of vandalizing it and its contents. Upon arriving at her destination, she broke into the trailer and, in accordance with her plan, proceeded to willfully and maliciously do extensive damage to the interior of the structure and the possessions of Joe's that were in the structure. Among other things, she flooded the trailer by stopping up the sinks, turning on the faucets, and letting the water run; spread and smeared food items that were in the refrigerator on the floor, walls, ceiling, furniture, and photographs, including photographs of the Scrivo children; slashed Joe's clothes and his bed with a knife; and damaged electronic equipment. In addition, she stole from the trailer three of Joe's credit cards, which she subsequently used to purchase, by fraudulent means, in excess of $300.00 worth of merchandise. Respondent's "trashing" of Joe's trailer and her theft and fraudulent use of his credit cards was related to her mental illness, which made it difficult for her to control her emotions and to exercise restraint (although she knew what she was doing and that her actions were wrong). Respondent engaged in this conduct, notwithstanding that she was at the time, and had been for approximately the previous 26 months, under the care of, and receiving treatment from, Drs. Ellinger and Yetz. In fact, Dr. Ellinger had specifically counseled Respondent to make every effort to avoid being provoked by Joe. There is no guarantee that Respondent will not engage in similar inappropriate conduct in the future. Indeed, given the nature of her mental illness, it is more likely than not that she will. The Discovery of Respondent's Crimes Respondent also took from the trailer, when she left after her rampage, three or four audio cassette tapes that Joe had used to secretly tape record Dana's telephone conversations before their separation. Respondent left the tapes outside the front door of Dana's apartment along with a note which read as follows: These are the tapes that Joe used to record your phone conversations. From a friend. When Dana found the tapes and read the note she figured that someone had broken into Joe's trailer. She suspected Respondent as having been the culprit because, to Dana's knowledge, other than Joe and her herself, only Respondent and a friend of Dana's who lived in New Jersey knew of the existence of the tapes. Dana asked two of her downstairs neighbors who were friendly with Joe to go check on Joe's trailer. They agreed to do so. Some time later, one of them returned and informed Dana that Joe's trailer was flooded and that the police had been called to the scene. The other neighbor telephoned Joe, who was still in Key West, and told him about the damage to his trailer. Joe returned home immediately. Respondent's Post-Incident Conduct Respondent did not want anyone to know what she had done. She therefore initially told no one, not even Dr. Ellinger, about her "trashing" of Joe's trailer and her stealing and subsequently using his credit cards. While she remained quiet about her wrongdoing, she was not reluctant to complain to others about what she perceived to be Joe's harassment of her. On or about October 29, 1996, Respondent applied for and obtained in Palm Beach County Circuit Court an ex parte restraining order against Joe. The restraining order was later dismissed on November 12, 1996, after a hearing on the matter, in which both Joe and Respondent participated. On November 22, 1996, the police came to Forest Hill to speak with Respondent about the events of October 27, 1996. After being read her Miranda rights, Respondent agreed to give a statement to the police. At first, Respondent denied breaking into Joe's trailer. Not long thereafter, however, she retracted her denial and admitted to the police what she had done. Following the interview, the police advised Respondent that they would be seeking the issuance of a capias for her arrest. The police told Principal Hardy of their intention to effect Respondent's arrest. Principal Hardy thereupon directed Respondent not to return to the classroom and informed her that she was being reassigned (with pay) to her home until further notice. Later that day, Respondent saw Dr. Ellinger and for the first time told him about her destructive behavior at Joe's trailer during the early morning hours of October 27, 1996. (She subsequently, on December 16, 1996, told Dr. Ellinger about the credit cards she had stolen and then used.) The District Meeting and Meeting of the Professional Standards Committee Principal Hardy brought the matter of the police investigation of Respondent to the attention of the School District's Department of Employee Relations. The Department of Employee Relations determined that a pre-disciplinary meeting should be held with Respondent. Such a pre-disciplinary meeting was ultimately held on March 18, 1997. Present at the meeting were representatives of the School District, a representative of the Palm Beach County Teachers Association, Respondent and her attorney. At the meeting, Respondent admitted to breaking into Joe's trailer and "trashing" it and to stealing Joe's credit cards and using them to make purchases in excess of $300.00. In attempting to explain why she had engaged in such conduct, Respondent claimed that Joe had taunted, stalked and harassed her prior to the incident. In addition, she advised that she was under the care of a psychologist, Dr. Ellinger, whom, she stated, the School District could contact if it so desired. After hearing from Respondent, the School District representatives at the meeting determined that there was probable cause for the matter to be presented to the School District's Professional Standards Committee for its recommendation. After having considered the matter, the Professional Standards Committee recommended to the School District's Superintendent of Schools that action be initiated to terminate Respondent's employment with the School District. The Superintendent's Action On April 14, 1997, the Superintendent of Schools sent Respondent a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Dismissal from Employment, which read as follows: Based upon substantial information presented to me, I hereby inform you that I have found probable cause sufficient to warrant recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal from employment with the School District as an instructor. You are charged with committing misconduct sufficient to constitute just cause under the 1995-1997 collective bargaining agreement between the School District of Palm Beach County, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, based upon the following actions (criminal or otherwise): First, you admitted to breaking into a trailer and "trashing it." Second, you admitted to stealing a credit card and using it to make purchases in excess of $300.00. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), School Board Rules and Regulations, and the Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in Florida, Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code. Please be advised that I will recommend at the May 7, 1997, meeting of the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, that the School Board suspend you without pay effective May 8, 1997, and that the termination of employment will become effective upon the expiration of fifteen days thereafter. This action is taken in accordance with Sections 230.23 and 230.33, Florida Statutes. The May 7, 1997, School Board meeting will be held in the Board Room at 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida at 5:00 p.m. You or your representative have the right to attend this meeting and present an oral statement or documentation to show why you should not be suspended without pay and/or terminated. If you intend to speak before the School Board, please immediately notify Ms. Alicia Bell, Clerk, at (561) 434- 8139, of your intention to make a presentation at that meeting. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3.27, you have the right to request a formal hearing contesting the recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal. If you desire to request a formal hearing, you must put your request in writing and submit it within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this letter to Cynthia S. Prettyman, General Counsel, School District of Palm Beach County, 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302, West Palm Beach Florida 33406-5813. Failure on your part to timely request a hearing will be deemed a waiver of your right to a hearing on the matter, and all material allegations and charges made against you shall be deemed true by the School Board for purposes of entering a final order in this matter. On April 22, 1997, the Superintendent of Schools executed a Petition for Dismissal, which contained the following "administrative charges" and "demand for relief": ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES Petitioner, Dr. P. Kowal, alleges as follows: Respondent, Debora Woessner, admits to breaking into a trailer and "trashing it." Respondent also admits to stealing a credit card and using it to make purchases in excess of $300.00. The above-described conduct violated Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), the Respondent's contract, the Palm Beach County School Board's Rules and Regulations, and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, Chapter 6B- 1, Florida Administrative Code. Just cause exists for the requested relief, pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Article II, Section M, of the collective bargaining agreement between the School District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association; the School Board's Rules and Regulations; and Rule 6B- 4.009, Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has engaged in misconduct, criminal and otherwise, which is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, to wit: destruction of property, breaking and entering, and theft. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Dr. Joan P. Kowal, Superintendent of Schools, recommends that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, immediately suspend Respondent, Debora Woessner, without further pay or benefits. The Petitioner recommends that the School Board, subsequent to providing the requisite notice, dismiss, the Respondent, Debora Woessner, from her employment as an instructor predicated upon the foregoing facts and legal authority. By letter dated April 28, 1997, which read as follows, Respondent, through her attorney, requested a hearing on the Superintendent of School's recommendation: Our office has been retained for the purpose of representing Ms. Debora Woessner before the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, with respect to the issues raised in the Superintendent's letter dated April 14, 1997, charging Ms. Woessner with misconduct. Ms. Woessner denies that there is any basis to support the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension without pay and contests the recommendation for her dismissal. Ms. Woessner requests that a hearing be conducted with respect to all issues raised by the charges described above and her defense to the charges, and requests such a hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., before a hearing officer appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. I will speak on Ms. Woessner's behalf at the School Board meeting scheduled for May 7, 1997, when the Board will consider the propriety of the recommendation for suspension without pay and dismissal from employment. The Criminal Proceedings After the conclusion of the police investigation of the "trashing" of Joe's trailer and the theft and use of his credit cards, the matter was turned over to the State Attorney and Respondent was criminally charged (in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 96-13985CFA02) with one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of grand theft. Respondent entered a guilty/"best interest" plea to both counts. An Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation was entered in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 96-13985CFA02 on April 23, 1997. The order placed Respondent on probation for a period of five years "concurrent with each count." Among the conditions of her probation were that she have "no contact" with Joe and that she pay Joe restitution in an amount to be determined following a hearing on the matter. Such a hearing was held on May 16, 1997, after which an order was entered which provided as follows: THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for a restitution hearing and this Court having [pr]esided at said hearing on May 16, 1997, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant, Debora Woessner, pay to the victim, Joseph Scrivo, restitution in the amount of $30,238.92. Restitution is to be a condition of the Defendant's probation sentence and shall be paid monthly in the minimum amount of $10 per month, commencing July 1, 1997 and continuing until paid in full. Publicity Respondent's criminal conduct was widely publicized in the community. It was reported in the newspaper and received television coverage. One particularly aggressive television news reporter attempted to interview Forest Hill students on school grounds to obtain their reaction to Respondent's wrongdoing. After the reporter was directed to leave, he stationed himself across the street from the school, where he interviewed students on their way home following the end of the school day. In addition, someone distributed in the neighborhood surrounding Forest Hill fliers which denounced Respondent as being unfit to teach as a result of her criminal conduct. Impaired Effectiveness Teachers serve as authority figures and role models for their students. Respondent's ability to effectively serve as a positive role model for her students has been seriously impaired by her widely publicized criminal conduct. The May 7, 1997, School Board Meeting The Superintendent of Schools' recommendation regarding Respondent's future employment was discussed at the Palm Beach County School Board's May 7, 1997, meeting. At the May 7, 1997, meeting, Respondent's attorney argued that the School Board was prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from taking adverse action against Respondent and that it was required by the ADA to provide her with an accommodation. The School Board decided not to take any action on the Superintendent of School's recommendation regarding Respondent's future employment until it received further information concerning Respondent's entitlement to protection under the ADA. Correspondence Concerning Respondent's ADA Claim On May 9, 1997, the School District's General Counsel sent Respondent's attorney a letter, which read as follows: On Wednesday, May 7, 1997, you appeared before the board on behalf of Debora Woessner. That evening you advised that Ms. Woessner had sought an ADA accommodation, and that her rights were violated due to the District's failure to accommodate her. As of today's date, we have had no information regarding this employee's request for an accommodation. No later than Monday, May 12, 1997, we would request a letter via facsimile to the attention of Dianne Howard, our Risk Manager, at (561) 434-8103 with regard to the following: Please outline the nature of your client's disability. Please outline how this disability affects her major life activity. Please advise as to the accommodation she is seeking. This information is critical for the District's consideration of your request. The consideration must be arrived on or before May 16, 1997. If this information is not received by Monday, and the meeting cannot be scheduled before May 16, 1997, th[e]n termination which was predicated on criminal activity, admitted by your client, will proceed at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on May 21, 1997. Respondent's attorney responded to this letter from the School District's General Counsel by letter dated May 12, 1997, which read as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of May 9, 1997 regarding Debora Woessner. For clarification, my statements to the Board indicated that Ms. Woessner was requesting, through her attorney, an accommodation. I further stated that Ms. Woessner was in possession of School Board Policy 3.06, and that the School Board should allow the District's ADA process to run its course before making a decision regarding Ms. Woessner's termination. I did not state that Ms. Woessner's rights had been violated. I stated that the Board should delay acting on the recommendation so that Ms. Woessner's rights would not be violated. Regarding your statement that the District has no information regarding Ms. Woessner's request for an accommodation, I stated at the meeting that (1) Ms. Woessner has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disability specifically defined by the DSM IV, (2) this disability affected a major life activity, i.e., interacting with people, (3) the actions for which the Superintendent recommended discipline for Ms. Woessner were directly related to her disability, (4) my client was directly in the process of getting information required by the district from the individual treating her for her disability, and that the district would be informed as to what accommodation was appropriate. Regarding the request contained in the letter, I spoke with Darren Edwards of your office on the afternoon of May 9, 1997 and informed him that Ms. Woessner would provide the requested information as early as possible. As I have previously informed you, and as I informed Mr. Edwards during the aforementioned conversation, Ms. Woessner obtained a copy of School Board Policy 3.06, and is in the process of complying with its dictates. Because of the nature of the information required by the Policy and the strictness of the Policy, it is not possible for Ms. Woessner to comply with your request that she have all information you requested in Ms. Howard's office by this afternoon. I would further note that this is the first time in the many instances in which I have dealt with the Palm Beach County School District on ADA accommodation questions that a deadline has been imposed on an employee. I have checked Policy 3.06 and can find no mention of a deadline within which an employee must provide the requested information. In short, it appears that Ms. Woessner has been singled out for special treatment. I consider this to be not only inappropriate, but possibly unlawful. I would also point out that your request implies that the information requested should come from me, Ms. Woessner's attorney, and not a mental health counselor. In short, it is my client's intention to comply with the District's ADA policy as quickly as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. In a letter sent to Respondent's attorney on May 12, 1997, the School District's General Counsel acknowledged receipt of his May 12, 1997, letter and further stated the following: Ms. Woessner was reassigned to her home with pay in November, 1996. Over the past six months, and during several conferences with Ms. Woessner, there has never been any mention of her alleged disability or request for an accommodation. The principal confirmed that during the last nine years, Ms. Woessner never indicated she suffered any mental disability. Certainly no request for an accommodation was ever made. However, Ms. Woessner was very aware of our ADA policy since she had requested on prior occasions, ADA accommodations for her allergies. Irrespective of the ADA claim which has only recently been made, Ms. Woessner acknowledged her actions which comprise the felony charges against her. After admitting to the charges, termination proceedings were commenced. It was only at the eleventh hour, when the Board was asked to proceed with her termination of employment, did you state that Ms. Woessner was suffering from a disability. Although the administration sought termination related to Ms. Woessner's admitted criminal behavior, we agreed to consider your request on your client's behalf. We asked you to specify the nature of the disability, how it affected a major life activity, and the specific accommodation she was seeking. Your letter to the District indicates that this information will not be provided in the time frame requested. As a matter of law and in accordance with the very same case you cited (Hindman v. GTE), the District has never been made aware of the disability allegedly suffered by your client at the time of the incident, at the District meeting, or when she was notified of the termination proceedings. There was no request for an accommodation which specifies the accommodation, as required by the ADA either prior to her criminal behavior, nor after she was notified in April of the termination proceedings. The District will proceed with the termination proceedings on May 21, 1997. On May 21, 1997, ten to fifteen minutes before the start of the School Board meeting scheduled for that day, Respondent's attorney handed the School District's Chief Personnel Officer a letter addressed to Diane Howard, the School District's Director of Employee Benefits and Risk Management, which read as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of an affidavit executed by Dr. Mark Ellinger. Dr. Ellinger is Debora Woessner's psychologist and has provided the affidavit to assist Ms. Woessner in obtaining an accommodation for a disability pursuant to School Board Policy 3.06. Ms. Woessner is a teacher assigned to Forest Hill Elementary School, and holds a Professional Services Contract. Her Social Security Number is . . . . As you can see from the Affidavit, Ms. Woessner has had some recent difficulties related to her disability, and has been recommended for suspension without pay and termination by the District. Ms. Woessner's position, which is supported by her Doctor, is that the actions for which she is being terminated are directly related to her disability and that she can continue her teaching position if she is provided with a reasonable accommodation. Ms. Woessner has already provided her doctors with releases so that the School Board can obtain her medical records. Dr. Ellinger's address and telephone number are as follows: . . . . I will provide you with similar information for Dr. Yetz in the near future. Please keep in mind that this correspondence, and the attached affidavit, are confidential pursuant to both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statutes. As such, copies may not be provided to the press, or any individual not involved with making a determination of whether Ms. Woessner is entitled to an accommodation. If you have any questions regarding the matter covered in this letter or the affidavit, please do not hesitate to contact my office. The affidavit of Dr. Ellinger, which was appended to letter, read as follows: I am a clinical psychologist working in Palm Beach County, and have been treating Debora Woessner since August 15, 1994, for mood and substance abuse problems. In addition to being treated by me, Ms. Woessner sees Dr. Yetz, a [p]sychiatrist, for medication. The specific diagnos[e]s for Ms. Woessner are Depressive Disorder, not otherwise specified (311.00 DSM IV) and Cannabis Dependence (304.30, DSM IV) with sustained partial remission.4 The medication Ms. Woessner takes significantly reduces the severity of her disorder.5 Ms. Woessner's disorders are directly related to her to having grown up in a situation where she was physically and psychologically abused, which later manifested itself in psychiatric problems such as depression, substance abuse, and relationship problems. Ms. Woessner's disorders interfere with her ability to interact with others, and impact her work. More specifically, Ms. Woessner's disorder, particularly in the absence of the medication prescribed by her psychiatrist, significantly restricts her ability to interact with others as compared to the average person in the general population. Ms. Woessner was involved in an incident in November of 1996 where she damaged a man's trailer and used his credit cards to make purchases without his assent. Had it not been for her abusive childhood and its subsequent psychiatric illness, Ms. Woessner would not have acted out in such an aggressive manner. Her psychological problems directly caused and are related to the incident that occurred in November. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Woessner will repeat such actions in the future.6 Ms. Woessner is a good, dedicated and caring professional who genuinely wants the best for her students. Her profession has always given a sense of pride, meaning and structure to her life. Ms. Woessner loves her work, which is a central part of her identity. Ms. Woessner has been a hard worker in psychotherapy and has with tenacity chipped away at her various problems with success. She has been consistent in therapy and follows up on recommendations to better herself and resolve her problems.7 Ms. Woessner does not represent a threat to herself or anyone and her problems are treatable. Ms. Woessner should receive a leave of absence until the beginning of the 1997-1998 school year so that she can resolve her problems. During this time, Ms. Woessner will be treated for her problems and will undergo testing to ensure that her problems have been resolved.8 It was not until September of 1997 that Howard received the May 21, 1997, letter from Respondent's attorney's and the attached affidavit of Dr. Ellinger. Upon receiving these documents, she prepared and then sent to Respondent's attorney the following written response: I am in receipt of your letter dated May 21, 1997 and directed to my attention. I am sorry for the delay in response, however, I just received this letter on September 17. It came to my attention through our Legal Counsel as they were preparing for a hearing. I am sorry I never received this before, but I will try to answer it now. Your letter indicates you are asking for an accommodation for Debora Woessner. You are providing an affidavit from a clinical psychologist indicating that Ms. Woessner suffers from depressive disorder and cannabis dependence. You do not state a specific type of reasonable accommodation in your letter, however, the affidavit provided by Mark Ellinger, the Clinical Psychologist, indicates that allowing Ms. Woessner a leave of absence for the rest of the school year would give her time to treat [her] for her problems. While a depressive disorder may be considered a disability under the ADA, and a leave of absence can be an acceptable accommodation, we do not usually require that leave requests go through as an ADA accommodation. The School District leave policy is so generous that we would allow her to have a medical leave without going through the ADA process. I do understand that Ms. Woessner has since been terminated from the School District and that the first time that the ADA accommodation request was brought up was at a School Board meeting when the School Board was considering her termination. Apparently your client was terminated for misconduct, specifically destruction of property, breaking and entering and theft. Even if I could consider making an accommodation for your client's problems, I could never accommodate destruction of property, breaking and entering and theft. We can accommodate time to take the medication, other things like leave of absence, but not improper behavior. I am enclosing a copy of the new School Board policy with a form that should be completed if you think you have anything else to offer that could be considered. I do believe that the time to bring up an accommodation request would have been prior to a termination hearing. The School Board's Action Contrary to what Howard had stated in her letter, Respondent had not been terminated by the School Board. The School Board had merely suspended Respondent without pay (effective following the end of the 1996-1997 school year) pending the outcome of this dismissal proceeding. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a teacher employed by the School District, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School District and the CTA (CTA Contract). Article I, Section D, of the CTA Contract addresses the subject of "management rights." It provides as follows: The [School] Board hereby retains and reserves unto itself, the Superintendent, the principals and other administrative personnel of the School System, all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities, and the exercise thereof, as conferred upon and vested in them by the Constitution and the Law and the Regulations of the United States and the State of Florida, and the policies of the School Board of Palm Beach County, in keeping with the provisions of this Agreement. Article II, Section M, of the CTA Contract addresses the subject of "discipline of employees." It provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association [CTA], 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. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Association representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Association representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under any Section and his/her Association representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and his/her Association representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. 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 rules and regulations,9 progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve months of the action/inaction of the employee which led to the notation. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension With Pay. A suspension with pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension with pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Agreement, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non- renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) taken include either a suspension or dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1998.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended, without pay and benefits, and terminated from employment with Petitioner for the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an intern principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time intern principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed misconduct, immorality, and gross insubordination, violating section 1012.33(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009(2), (3), and (4); and Suspending Doreen Maynard, without pay and benefits, and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2011.
