The Issue The central issue in case no. 88-2368 is whether Respondent should be suspended for thirty workdays due to misconduct in office. The central issue in case no. 88-3315 is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and incompetency.
Findings Of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Marlene Rodriguez 16333 Wood Walk Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: With regard to case no. 88-2368, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to suspend Respondent for a thirty workday period for misconduct in office. With regard to case no. 88-3315, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to dismiss Respondent from employment for misconduct in office, incompetence, and gross insubordination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2368, 88-3315 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the exception of George C. Clark, Mr. Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraphs 3-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not specific facts adduced by such testimony; some of the recitation being without basis. It is found that Respondent did not follow school policies regarding the discipline administered to students, that Respondent was aware of the correct procedures, and that Respondent continuously had trouble regarding classroom management. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is unnecessary to the conclusions reached in this cause. Paragraph 10 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but as a indication of the student-teacher relationship between Respondent and one of the students she taught. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above as it relates to the hearsay contents of the letter. Other portions of the paragraph which conclude respondent knew discipline procedures but did not follow them, or knew notice policies but did not follow them are accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19,20,21, and 22 are accepted only to the extent addressed in findings of fact, paragraphs 7,8,9, and 10; otherwise, the proposed findings are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by admissible evidence. Paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, the first two sentences are accepted, the balance is rejected as hearsay or unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraphs 27, 29, and 30 are accepted. (Petitioner did not submit a paragraph 28) In the future, proposed findings submitted which do not conform to the rules of the Florida Administrative Code will be summarily rejected. Petitioner is cautioned to review applicable rules, and to cite appropriately. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the clarification that Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, according to the evidence in this case, Repodent taught at Miami Gardens Elementary School (Leon was her principal there) and North Carol City Elementary School (Sawyer and Brown were her principals there). Other schools may have been assigned during her periods of "special assignment" but the record is insufficient to establish Respondent's performance while on such assignments. The record is insufficient to make the legal conclusion addressed in paragraph 4, consequently, it is rejected. The Board addressed a recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment; however, the record does not establish final action was taken. The facts alleged in paragraph 5 are too voluminous to address in one paragraph. Petitioner's continued use of a recitation of the testimony does not constitute findings of fact. Pertinent to this case are the following facts adduced from Petitioner's paragraph 5: that Respondent's overall performance was unacceptable, that Respondent failed to direct students who were off task, that Respondent made an excessive number of referrals for discipline, and that the atmosphere in Respondent's class was not conducive to learning. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 6, it is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See finding made regarding paragraph 5, case no. 88-2368. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the specific evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10-14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected with the exception of the last sentence; the time sequence referred to is not specified in the record. The record does establish, however, that Respondent did not make progress in correcting noted areas of deficiency. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have duplicate numbers for the following paragraphs: 15,16, and 17. The second set of these paragraphs are addressed below. Second paragraph 15 accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted but as an indication of the teacher-student relationship between Respondent and her student. Second paragraph 16 is accepted. Second paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraphs 19-22 are accepted.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent as a secretary at Lindsey Hopkins Prior to 2010, school administrators at Lindsey Hopkins had received numerous complaints from school employees that Respondent had verbally harassed them. On February 8, 2010, Esteban Sardon was working as Assistant Principal of Lindsey Hopkins. On that date he was in one of the school's administrative offices and Respondent was also present. Mr. Sardon coughed while in the office. Almost immediately, Respondent accused Mr. Sardon of having spit on her. Respondent sent Dr. Rosa Borgen, the principal of Lindsey Hopkins, a letter on February 10, 2010, that alleged that Mr. Sardon had deliberately twice spit and coughed in her face. In her letter, Respondent described "[t]wo big huge cough breath [sic] rate were [sic] about 70 to 80 wind speed with a [sic] some saliva." Respondent also sent Mr. Sardon a memorandum calling his behavior "unprofessional" and alleging that she was going to contact "CRC" (the Civil Rights Compliance Office). Mr. Sardon denied, credibly, that he spat on Respondent. The more credible evidence established that he did cough twice in Respondent's presence, but the coughs were dry coughs and not in the direction of Respondent. Respondent fabricated the allegation that Mr. Sardon had purposefully spat on her. In an attempt to resolve the issues related to Respondent's allegations that Mr. Sardon had spat on her, Mr. Gornto, a district administrator, decided that the school administrators should meet with Mr. Sardon and Respondent. On March 9, 2010, Pamela Johnson, an instructional supervisor, from Mr. Gornto's office, met with Mr. Sardon, Respondent, Dr. Borgen, and another assistant principal of Lindsey Hopkins. At the meeting, Respondent presented a document entitled "What Would Make Me Happy" and asked Mr. Sardon to sign it. The "demands" were as follows: I will never ever to [sic] use you're [sic] inside waste on me [sic]. Meaning neither your breath, nor your saliva. I am not a toilet. I am Human [sic]. A Human Being [sic]. Not to try to embarrass me in front of my co-workers. Not to retaliate against me after this incident. Big apology. Mr. Sardon offered an apology to put the matter at rest, but he refused to sign the document. Shortly after the "spitting" accusation, Respondent had conflicts with Drusilla Sears and Donna Wallace, both of whom worked closely with Mr. Sardon. On March 2, 2010, Ms. Sears, a school account clerk, asked Respondent if she was finished using a copy machine. Respondent told her that she had asked a "stupid question," thereby starting a verbal altercation that included finger- pointing by Respondent and by Ms. Sears. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Ms. Sears did not threaten physical harm to Respondent. This run-in upset Ms. Sears. On March 3, 2010, Respondent sent another letter to Dr. Borgen claiming that Ms. Sears had tried to beat her up. In the letter Respondent also stated, in all capital letters, the following: "I AM NO FOOL. I KNOW SOMEONE TOLD DRUSILLA TO DO THIS TO ME." There was no credible evidence that anyone had instructed Ms. Sears to do anything to Respondent. To the contrary, the greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent provoked the incident with Ms. Sears. On March 5, 2010, Respondent wrote another letter to Dr. Borgen. That letter referenced the incidents with Mr Sardon and Ms. Sears and also asserted that someone had placed child pornography on her school computer. There was no credible evidence that anyone had placed pornography on Respondent's computer.1 On March 16, 2010, Mr. Gornto sent Respondent a memorandum related to an earlier correspondence he had received from Respondent. In the letter Mr. Gornto told Respondent that any future complaints regarding employees should be made to Dr. Borgen, to the CRC, or to the school police department. Despite this directive from Mr. Gornto, Respondent continued to contact Mr. Gornto. These contacts (Petitioner's Exhibits 9, 12, and 17-21) were in the form of emails that contained false (and often nonsensical) allegations of employee wrongdoing against her. Each of these emails constituted separate and distinct acts that contradicted Mr. Gornto's directives to Respondent. A recurring theme in those emails was that Dr. Borgen and other school employees were trying to "destroy" her or make her "miserable." In one email, Respondent alleged that one of Mr. Gornto's subordinates had been impersonating Mr. Gornto. In April 2010, Respondent approached school clerk Donna Wallace and accused her of saying something about Respondent to a school counselor. Ms. Wallace denied, credibly, that there was a factual basis for the allegation. Respondent told Ms. Wallace to "watch her back" and threatened to sue her for slander. The incident made Ms. Wallace feel uncomfortable and embarrassed. On April 13, 2010, Respondent engaged in a verbal altercation with Shundra Hardy, a data input specialist. Ms. Hardy worked in the student registration department. When Mr. Sardon was made aware of this incident, Mr. Sardon told Respondent that she was only to visit the registration area as long she did not disturb other employees. This directive caused Respondent to yell and confront Mr. Sardon in his office, As a result of that confrontation, Mr. Sardon called school security. On May 18, 2010, a conference for the record (CFR) was held with Respondent. Dr. Borgen, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Anna Rasco (Administrative Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards) represented Petitioner. The recent conflicts involving Respondent prompted a decision that she would have to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. During the time the evaluation was to be completed, Respondent was placed on alternate assignment at her home. Respondent was directed to refrain from engaging in the behaviors that had prompted the need for the evaluation, and she was directed not to contact the school (other than through the principal's office to report her attendance) while on alternate assignment. By letter dated August 10, 2010, Stephen Kahn, M.D., advised Dr. Rasco that Respondent was not fit for duty due to her mental status.2 By letter to Dr. Rasco dated September 4, 2010, Richard S. Greenbaum, Ph.D., a psychologist, opined that Respondent could return to work if she continued to see a psychotherapist.3 On October 4, 2010, Respondent called Lindsey Hopkins and spoke with two employees. These contacts were in direct violation of the directives that had been issued to her.4 On October 14, 2010, a CFR was held with Respondent. Ms. Nyce Daniel (who had replaced the retired Dr. Borgen as Principal of Lindsey Hopkins), Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Brasco represented Petitioner. This CFR was held to address Respondent's non-compliance with the terms and directives given to her while on alternate assignment. Respondent was directed to refrain from engaging in the behaviors that had prompted the need for a fitness evaluation. Respondent was also advised that she would not be permitted to return to work because of the conflicting opinions between Drs. Kahn and Greenbaum. Respondent selected Joseph W. Poitier, Jr., M.D., to conduct her third evaluation. By letter to Dr. Rasco dated March 14, 2011, Dr. Poitier opined that within a reasonable medical certainty Respondent was able to return to work without restriction.5 On March 30, 2011, a CFR was held with Respondent. Ms. Daniel, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Brasco represented Petitioner. Based on Dr. Poitier's opinion, Respondent was advised that she could return to work on April 4. Respondent was again given directives that included explicit directives to refrain from the behaviors that had caused the need for her fitness for duty evaluations. Specifically, Respondent was instructed to avoid altercations with school staff. On April 5, 2011, with people present in the office, Respondent, using vulgar language, told Cassandra Johnson (a teacher at Lindsey Hopkins) that her husband, Charles Johnson (the head custodian) had engaged in a sexual affair with Dr. Borgen and that Dr. Borgen had been "doing all the guys in school." Ms. Johnson attempted to distance herself from Respondent, but Respondent pursued Ms. Johnson down the hall and continued her verbal tirade. Ms. Johnson was humiliated and upset by the incident. Respondent's actions disrupted Ms. Johnson's ability to perform her duties that day. Mr. Johnson was very upset by Respondent's accusation and denied, credibly, that he had ever had a sexual relationship with Ms. Borgen. Mr. Johnson was concerned that the accusations could hurt his marriage, and he was concerned because his wife was very upset. On April 7, 2011, Respondent confronted Thomas Nunn (an automotive instructor at Lindsey Hopkins) and implied that he had been in an intimate relationship with Dr. Borgen. Mr. Nunn was not offended by Respondent's comments. However, Ms. Daniel learned of Respondent's comments to Mr. Nunn. On April 8 Ms. Daniel directed Respondent to refrain from such conduct. At the time Ms. Daniel gave those directions to Respondent, Ms. Daniel did not know about the incident involving Mr. and Ms. Johnson. On April 8, 2011, Respondent called Mr. Gornto's office to ask permission to take half-day leave. This call was in violation of the directives Mr. Gornto had given to her as to how she was to communicate with her supervisors. On April 11, 2001, Ms. Daniel learned of the incident involving Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. On or about April 28, 2011, Respondent complained to the CRC that Erinn Gobert (the ESOL chairperson at Lindsey Hopkins) and Sophia Hall (an assistant principal at Lindsey Hopkins) had been harassing her. She stated that they were mumbling things about her, taunting her, and teasing her. She further reported that Ms. Gobert and Ms. Hall made gestures that they wanted to fight with Respondent. Respondent's accusations of harassment triggered an investigation. Respondent's accusations were complete fabrications. Neither Ms. Gobert nor Ms. Hall had any meaningful contact with Respondent. On May 18, 2011, a CFR was held with Respondent to address her gross insubordination and violation of other school board rules. Ms. Daniel, Mr. Gornto, and Dr. Rasco represented Petitioner. As a result of her behaviors, Ms. Daniel had to constantly give Respondent specific tasks to minimize Respondent's interaction with other employees. Despite Ms. Daniel's efforts, Respondent's run-ins with co-workers were throughout the school and reached outside of Respondent's assigned work area. Many of her co-workers were not comfortable working with or near Respondent. The efforts to shield co- workers from Respondent created extra work for Ms. Daniel. Respondent's repeated contacts with Mr. Gornto and her baseless accusations towards co-workers disrupted his work and consumed an inordinate amount of his time. Respondent's behavior negatively impacted employee morale at Lindsey Hopkins and disrupted its operations. Respondent repeatedly refused to obey administrative directives that were reasonable in nature and given with proper authority.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to make reasonable effort to protect a student's safety, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 646554 in the area of Mentally Handicapped. For the past six or seven years, Respondent has been employed as an ESE teacher at Windy Ridge. The record contains no evidence of prior discipline of Respondent's educator certificate, but the District suspended her for five days without pay for the three incidents that are described below. For the 2012-13 school year, Respondent and four paraprofessionals taught a class of seven ESE students. The paraprofessionals performed tasks assigned to them by Respondent. Absences on December 4, 2012, reduced the class to five ESE students, Respondent, and two of the four paraprofessionals regularly assigned to Respondent's classroom. The principal assigned a substitute for one of the two absent paraprofessionals, so four adults were supervising five students on that day. One of the five students present on December 4 was D.R., who was nine and one-half years old and suffered from a "significant cognitive disability." As documented by his Individual Educational Plan (IEP), which is dated November 6, 2012, D.R.'s mother was "very concerned" about the safety of her son, who was tube-fed, "non-verbal," and able to follow only "some simple one-step commands." The IEP warns that D.R. was in a "mouthing stage," meaning that he put "everything" in his mouth for sensory input. As described in his social/developmental history, which is dated November 1, 2012, D.R.'s health was "fragile." The three incidents at issue took place during approximately one hour at midday on December 4. The first incident took place at 11:10 a.m. Serena Perrino, a District behavior trainer, was sitting alone in Ms. Barnabei's classroom, which is next to Respondent's classroom. The two classrooms are joined by the two teachers' offices, so it is possible to walk between the classrooms without entering the hallway. On a break, Ms. Perrino had turned off the lights and was on the computer at the front of Ms. Barnabei's classroom. While facing the computer monitor, Ms. Perrino heard a noise behind her, turned around, and saw D.R., by himself, seated on the floor playing with a toy. Ms. Perrino knew that he belonged in Respondent's classroom. Without delay, Ms. Perrino walked D.R. toward his classroom, but, as they were passing through the teachers' offices, Ms. Perrino and D.R. encountered one of Respondent's paraprofessionals, who said that she was "just coming to get him, thanks." The second incident took place between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Bernadette Banagale, the substitute paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom on that day, was eating lunch in a small outside courtyard that is located at the end of the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. Ms. Banagale saw D.R., by himself, enter the courtyard from the doors at the end of the hallway. Ms. Banagale approached D.R. and, with some difficulty, walked him back to Respondent's classroom where she left him in the custody of the other two paraprofessionals, Susan Brown and Delta Porter, but not Respondent, who was not in the classroom when Ms. Banagale returned the child. The third incident took place shortly after noon. Cathy Zimmerman, a teacher, was sitting in a classroom eating lunch with another teacher. Looking out the window of the classroom, Ms. Zimmerman noticed D.R. in the adjoining breezeway, which divides the building from the school parking lot. Ms. Zimmerman did not know D.R., nor where he belonged, but she saw that he was unescorted. Approaching D.R. in the breezeway, Ms. Zimmerman guided him back through the doors leading to a hallway that, after a short distance, intersects the hallway where Respondent's classroom is located. As she was walking the child into the building, Ms. Zimmerman directed the teacher with whom she had been having lunch to enter the nearest classroom to see if anyone could identify the child. As directed, the other teacher entered Ms. Barnabei's classroom, where she found Ms. Perrino, who again took custody of D.R. and immediately returned him to Respondent's classroom where Ms. Perrino found Respondent and one or more paraprofessionals. In an effort to prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R., Petitioner offered two pieces of evidence: during direct examination, the principal prescribed that a classroom teacher is required to know at all times the location of her students, and, during cross-examination, Respondent agreed with the metaphor supplied to her by Petitioner's counsel that a classroom teacher is the "captain of the ship." The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor constitute the entirety of Petitioner's explicit analysis of the reasonableness of Respondent's effort to protect D.R. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the first incident. The principal's testimony is inapt because Petitioner failed to prove that a paraprofessional did not always know D.R.'s location; that Respondent failed to protect D.R. when a paraprofessional knew his location, regardless of whether Respondent knew his location; and that D.R.'s safety was compromised at any time during the few seconds that he was in the adjoining classroom. Respondent's testimony is inapt because Petitioner did not prove that a paraprofessional failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety, which would be a pre-condition to attributing this failure to the captain of the ship, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the second incident. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape or at any time during his ensuing absence from the classroom and failed to prove that Respondent's absence from the classroom was unauthorized. As for the absence of Respondent from the classroom at the time of the escape in the second incident, the strongest evidence is Respondent's written statement to this effect. Other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement that she was not in the classroom at the time of the escape. Ms. Banagale's scheduled lunch was 11:30 a.m. to noon, and nothing in the record suggests that the substitute paraprofessional took her lunch at other than her scheduled time. The distance between the front door of Respondent's classroom and the exterior doors leading to the courtyard is the width of the single classroom that separates Respondent's classroom from these exterior doors, so it would not have taken D.R. long to travel from the front door of the classroom to the exterior doors leading to the courtyard. Respondent's scheduled lunch was 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., but Respondent testified that she was behind schedule when she took her lunch. She also testified that she returned to the classroom "a little after noon." Nothing in the record indicates how long Respondent took for lunch, but, if she took all of her allotted time, she likely left the classroom shortly after Ms. Banagale, leaving a very narrow window for D.R. to escape, if he were to do so after Ms. Banagale's departure, but before Respondent's departure--a fact that Petitioner has not established. The only evidence suggesting that Respondent was in the classroom at the time of D.R.'s escape comes from Respondent's testimony at the hearing to this effect. Notwithstanding the inculpatory nature of Respondent's testimony, it is impossible to credit it. Provided nearly two years after the incident, Respondent's testimony was, at times, confused and unclear, but her written statement is clear and straightforward. It would appear that, based on the findings below concerning the third incident, Respondent may have confused the second and third incidents. The principal's prescription and Respondent's metaphor do not prove that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R. in the third incident. The third incident is more complicated than the first and second incidents because it is more difficult to determine exactly what Petitioner proved and the extent to which the material factual allegations extend to the proof of the third incident.2/ At minimum, Petitioner pleaded3/ and proved that D.R. escaped from the classroom, and Respondent was in the classroom at the time of the escape. Respondent gave a written statement admitting that she was present when D.R. left the classroom and that she was unaware of his departure "because my back was turned by me working with another student on the computer, [as D.R.] left out the rear door." At the hearing, Respondent testified confusingly, possibly suggesting that she was at lunch or in planning when D.R. escaped in connection with the third incident, but any such exculpatory testimony is discredited for the same reason that her inculpatory testimony regarding the second incident was rejected. As was true of the written statement in connection with the second incident, other evidence tends to support Respondent's written statement in connection with the third incident. As noted in the discussion of the second incident, Respondent returned to the classroom "a little after noon." At this point, Respondent, Ms. Banagale, and Ms. Brown were in the classroom. Ms. Porter's scheduled lunch was from noon to 12:30 p.m., and nothing in the record suggests that she did not take her lunch as scheduled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, analysis of whether Respondent failed to meet a reasonableness standard may be facilitated by consideration of the burden of taking precautions sufficient to prevent an escape, the probability of an escape, and the magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety, if he escaped. The burden of taking additional precautions was not insubstantial. The classroom has three exits, and D.R. used each of them in connection with the three incidents. In the first incident, as noted above, D.R. used a side exit through the teachers' offices to get to the adjoining classroom of Ms. Barnabei. In the second incident, D.R. used the front door to get to the courtyard. In the third incident, D.R. used the rear door to access the adjoining breezeway, where Ms. Zimmerman found him no more than 75 feet from the rear door. Evidence suggests that locking the doors at each of these exits was forbidden, possibly due to fire regulations. Although three adults were supervising only five ESE students at the moment of D.R.'s escape in the third incident, the paraprofessional who normally taught D.R. one-on-one at the time of the escape was absent. It is not entirely clear how long Respondent was in the classroom before D.R. escaped, but Respondent was performing instructional duties at the moment of the escape, so additional attention by Respondent to security would have meant reduced instruction, at least of the child whom she was teaching one-on-one at the time of the escape; this adds to the burden of taking escape precautions.4/ The probability of D.R.'s escape was demonstrably very high, as evidenced by his three escapes in a single hour on December 4. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape is difficult to assess. D.R. was a medically fragile, highly vulnerable child. However, he suffered no injuries in any of the three escapes that are the subject of this case. The magnitude of the threat posed to D.R.'s safety from escaping was thus low. Considering that the burden of taking additional precautions was moderate, the probability of escape was high, and the magnitude of threat to D.R.'s safety from an escape was low, it is impossible to find that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety by preventing the escape in connection with the third incident. The analysis in the preceding paragraphs focuses on Respondent's failure at the moment of D.R.'s escape, not on the duration of his absence from the classroom and any ongoing failure to notice that the child was missing from the classroom. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner did not plead these failures as grounds for disciplining Respondent, but, in an abundance of caution, the following findings address these alternative grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect D.R.'s safety in connection with the third incident. There is no direct evidence of how long D.R. was out of the classroom in connection with the third incident. There is only one point in time established by direct evidence: Ms. Zimmerman first saw the child at 12:10 p.m. There is no direct evidence of when D.R. escaped from the classroom, nor could there have been such evidence from the known witnesses. Ms. Zimmerman's written statement notes that all of the physical education teachers, which may include her, were in the area of the breezeway from noon to 12:07 p.m., and they never saw D.R. Ms. Zimmerman's statement implies that someone would have seen D.R. if he had been anywhere in the breezeway by himself. Although Ms. Zimmerman could have estimated how long she had the child before turning him over to Ms. Perrino, no one asked her to do so.5/ And there is no other direct evidence of how long Ms. Zimmerman had the child. Based on the evidence cited in the preceding paragraph, D.R. escaped the classroom between 12:08 p.m. and 12:10 p.m. and returned to the classroom between 12:11 p.m. and 12:13 p.m. Limiting inferences to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the earliest that D.R. left the classroom was 12:09 p.m., and the latest that D.R. returned to the classroom was 12:11 p.m. This means that Petitioner has proved that D.R. was absent from the classroom for no more than two minutes: one minute by himself and one minute accompanied by Ms. Zimmerman. The burden of taking adequate precautions to detect the child's absence and return him to the safety of the classroom is lower than the burden of preventing the escape, which can occur in a few seconds, although it is difficult to assess what exactly would have been required of Respondent to conduct a search or, by notifying school administrators, to cause a search to be conducted. The burden of preventing an escape is much greater than the burden of noticing, within two minutes, that a child is missing from a five-student classroom. The magnitude of the threat to D.R.'s safety rises the longer that he is out of the classroom, especially unescorted. Presenting a closer case than the pleaded case involving only an escape, the claim that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort, when directed to the length of time that D.R. was out of the classroom, requires consideration of any effort that Respondent made during D.R.'s absence. The duration of D.R.'s absence is thus linked to whether Respondent noticed that D.R. was missing and, if so, what Respondent did upon discovering that he was gone. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, because inferences are limited to those supported by clear and convincing evidence, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing. There is no direct evidence that Respondent and the paraprofessionals failed to notice that D.R. was missing from the classroom. The record lacks admissions from Respondent and the two paraprofessionals in the classroom during the third incident that they were unaware of D.R.'s absence.6/ Both Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Perrino testified that they did not see anyone in the vicinity of the classroom looking for D.R., and this testimony is credited, but supports no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom were not looking for the child, and does not support even an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults in the classroom had failed to notice that D.R. was missing. Ms. Perrino testified that when she returned D.R. to the classroom, none of the adults present seemed to have realized that the child had been missing. This testimony is credited, but, lacks important detail, including on what this testimony is based and whether this observation applied to Respondent, so as to support no more than an inference by a preponderance of the evidence that the adults had not noticed that D.R. was missing. Thus, even if Petitioner has pleaded the duration of D.R.'s absence and a failure to notice the absence of the student as grounds for determining that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect his safety, Petitioner failed to prove these claims by clear and convincing evidence
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2014.
The Issue Whether Brevard County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), has just cause to terminate the professional services contract held by Joyce D. Iloka (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise public schools within the Brevard County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district, including those personnel decisions affecting the professional teaching staff at THS. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent was an employee of the School Board and was subject to the statutes, rules, and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, Respondent was assigned to teach drafting at THS. All allegations relate to Respondent's tenure at THS and the performance of her duties as a drafting instructor. By letter dated February 2, 2009, Petitioner notified Respondent that a recommendation would be made to the School Board to terminate her employment with the school district. At its meeting on February 10, 2009, Petitioner accepted the recommendation of the school administration and voted to approve Respondent's employment termination. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to challenge the decision of the School Board. Petitioner charged Respondent with failure to correct deficiencies identified in a performance plan designed to assist Respondent to remediate unacceptable defects in her teaching performance. Second, Petitioner alleged that the deficiencies noted by THS personnel also constituted an additional basis for termination: incompetency. Respondent maintains that student performance must be considered in the review of her performance and that she was competent and qualified to perform her teaching responsibilities and had done so for a number of years without concern from the THS administration. Respondent began employment with the school district in 1996. She was assigned to THS from 2004-2008. From her first assignment until the 2007/2008 school year, Respondent received satisfactory performance evaluations. Petitioner utilizes an instructional personnel evaluation system known as the Performance Appraisal System (PAS). PAS was approved by state authorities and was cooperatively developed by teachers and administrators for use in Brevard County. PAS details the procedures, method, and forms to be utilized in the completion of instructional personnel evaluations. All such criteria were met in the evaluations performed of Respondent's work. Additionally, school administrators who perform employee evaluations must be thoroughly trained in PAS and must conform to the uniformity afforded by the PAS instrument. All administrators identified in this cause who performed evaluations of the Respondent were trained and were fully certified to evaluate personnel based upon the PAS instrument. Ron Philpot is an assistant principal at THS. He has worked in Brevard County for approximately 37 years and has been assigned to THS for the last 17. Lori Spinner is the principal at THS. For the 2006/2007 school year, Mr. Philpot was assigned to evaluate Respondent. Dr. Spinner signed off on Respondent's 2006/2007 performance evaluation on February 14, 2007. Respondent's 2006/2007 PAS evaluation found her to be overall "high performing." Mr. Philpot was the only administrator/observer who visited Respondent's classroom in order to complete the 2006/2007 evaluation. In his many years of performing evaluations, Mr. Philpot has given only one unsatisfactory evaluation. On December 4, 2007, Dr. Spinner visited Respondent's classroom for the purpose of observing the class and Respondent's performance. On that date there were 17 students present and Dr. Spinner made visual sweeps of the classroom every ten minutes to determine the engagement level of the students. For the time period from 12:25-12:55 p.m., no fewer than two and no more than four students were off-task or not engaged in the lesson. Dr. Spinner remained in Respondent's class for 45 minutes and completed notes from her observation. Pertinent to the allegations of this case are the following observations entered by Dr. Spinner: Instructional Organization - No teacher-based questioning was used during the entire lesson. No learning objective is evident and no agenda or objectives are noted on the board. Materials are not organized and six incidents of non-instructional/unrelated talk were noted. In the middle of the lesson, the teacher states, "Where are you third block?" "What are you working on?" Directions for activity are vague and non- specific. Teacher states "Put in a window anywhere"; "Put in a door somewhere". Teacher circulated several times to address individual concerns. Presentation of Subject Matter - Only 1 concept was presented during the lesson (rotating windows and doors)and appeared to be a review. No new concepts were presented. Instructions for the project were inadequate and vague. Visuals on the board are illegible and difficult to see. Students demonstrated confusion with assignment. Several questions went unanswered or ignored. Communication - Vague and sporadic. No teacher questioning for comprehension. Student questions went unanswered or hands- raised were ignored. In response to one question, teacher states, "I think it says something about that in your book, I think it says . . ." Teacher expressed confusion in demonstrating a plot plan. Was not able to implement the correct commands with Mechanical Desktop Architect program. Management of Conduct - Several students not engaged during lesson. Five incidents of misconduct were not addressed during the lesson. Based upon the observations noted above, Dr. Spinner met with Respondent to provide her with an interim evaluation of her performance. Of the nine individual assessment categories, Dr. Spinner identified only two items that needed improvement. Both were noted under the "Instructional Strand" heading. Comments entered by Dr. Spinner advised Respondent: Ms. Iloka had several students off task or not engaged in the lesson, throughout the class period. She did not have materials prepared in advance which resulted in lost instructional time. Teacher-student interactions often included unrelated talk and off-task discussions. There were long delays during the instructional lesson and instructions/directions were not clear for students. Requirements for the activity were not presented in advance and directions were vague. This resulted in delays in learning and gaps in instructional activities. Presentation of instructions and project directions were vague and difficult for students to follow. Requirements were not presented in advance. There was no instructional questioning during the lesson to ensure comprehension. Concepts were presented with examples only. Students did not have an instructional visual to reference as they worked with the program. Dr. Spinner attempted to communicate the areas of concern noted above but Respondent was resistant. Further, Dr. Spinner sought to encourage Respondent to continue her education and professional development as a means of continuous professional growth. Dr. Spinner hoped that Respondent would recruit more students into the drafting program because the enrollment had steadily declined during Respondent's tenure at THS. None of Dr. Spinner's suggestions were well-received by Respondent. On January 30, 2008, Dr. Spinner observed Respondent's class from 1:55-2:40 p.m. As before, Dr. Spinner made a visual sweep of the class to determine student engagement every ten minutes. Again, as before, Dr. Spinner observed two to four students not engaged during the sweeps. Many of the comments generated by the January 30, 2008, observation mirrored the prior observation. Dr. Spinner felt Respondent had made no serious effort to improve the areas of concern that needed improvement. The interim PAS evaluation signed by Dr. Skinner and Respondent on February 1, 2008, included three categories that needed improvement and noted that Respondent's overall evaluation needed improvement. To provide assistance for Respondent, Dr. Skinner assigned a teacher/peer mentor at the school level to provide direction and help to the Respondent in order to remediate the deficient areas of performance. Respondent did not avail herself of the mentor and did not implement meaningful changes to her instructional content or delivery. Later Dr. Skinner secured a mentor teacher from outside the school to assist the Respondent. Again, Respondent did not implement the suggestions made by that mentor. Dr. Spinner prepared professional development assistance (PDA) forms for areas of concern in order to identify the behaviors that were deficient, the strategies for improvement of the deficiency, and the assistance that the school would provide to Respondent. For example, the PDA dated February 1, 2008, to improve management of student conduct noted that peer mentor, Jane Speidel, would assist Respondent to develop a classroom management plan so that students who are off-task can be appropriately engaged in the learning process. According to Ms. Speidel, Respondent did not want assistance in this regard and had "no desire to adopt any new changes." On February 19, 2008, Dr. Spinner again observed Respondent's class. Many of the same deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct were noted. At one point during the observation, Respondent received a sub sandwich and a drink from a colleague. As Respondent had just finished a duty-free lunch time prior to the observation time, the delivery of food during a class period seemed inappropriate to Dr. Skinner. Dr. Skinner’s next observation of Respondent's class was on February 28, 2008. Deficiencies were listed in the areas of instructional organization, presentation of subject matter, communication, and management of conduct. Many of the problems noted in prior observations were continuing. The common thread running through each observation was the failure on Respondent's part to even attempt to incorporate new strategies or concepts into her teaching effort. Specifically, with regard to student performance, students remained off task. Students continued to be confused by vague or confusing directions and exhibited an indifference to drafting. Students were observed sleeping, eating, playing solitaire, and computer games or surfing the Internet when they should have been working on projects or completing appropriate drafting assignments. On March 6, 2008, Dr. Skinner gave Respondent her annual evaluation. Unsurprisingly, Respondent was given an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory. As Respondent had made little or no effort to improve in the areas noted as deficient during the school year (as delineated in prior observations), Respondent was advised: Ms. Iloka is expected to improve in the areas noted as unsatisfactory. A formal plan and support has been provided to assist her in becoming more effective with her students. She is expected to demonstrate improvement as an expectation for continued employment. At the conclusion of the annual PAS evaluation, Respondent was advised that a 90-day probationary period would begin at the start of the 2008/2009 school year. Accordingly, from August 11, 2008, Respondent was subject to PDA plans to address deficiencies in the categories of instructional organization and development, presentation of subject matter, and management of student conduct. The same three areas of concern that were identified throughout the 2007/2008 school year continued to be a concern. On August 11, 2008, Respondent signed a letter acknowledging that she would be on probationary status for 90 days and that she would be evaluated periodically during that time. A resource teacher from the county, John Hays, was identified to Respondent as someone who would provide support and information for presenting the subject matter appropriately and developing a classroom management plan. During the fall of 2008, Respondent was observed on several occasions. None of the visits to Respondent's classroom evidenced any significant improvement on her part to address the deficient areas of performance. Assistant Principal Jerri Mallicoat completed PAS evaluations that noted the same deficiencies. Respondent did not complete lesson plans with sufficient detail so that a substitute could understand and step in for an absence. Respondent did not develop a classroom management plan to ensure that off-task students could be redirected to the assignment. Further, students committing violations of school rules (such as eating in the classroom) were not appropriately disciplined and redirected. Respondent did not avail herself of resources available through the school site mentor or county resource opportunities. Petitioner afforded Respondent with opportunities for improvement through in-service classes and mentor teachers. Respondent is a non-degreed vocational industrial arts teacher. Drafting and other vocational industrial arts classes are commonly taught by credentialed persons who achieve some industry-recognized authorization as sufficient to demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Respondent's knowledge of her subject area is not questioned. Her ability to translate that knowledge in a meaningful manner to a classroom of students while maintaining order and on-task behavior and her failure to recognize her need to improve performance in these areas is the subject of this cause. For whatever reason, Respondent would not or could not improve performance in the deficient areas. During the 2008/2009 school year THS used block scheduling. Teachers would have students for 90-minute blocks. Respondent was challenged to fill that time with educational content and maintain students in on-task efforts. Respondent had two blocks of drafting students. Enrollment in drafting declined such that the remainder of Respondent's work day was spent as a substitute for other teachers. Within a block, Respondent had multiple levels of drafting students, first-time drafting students up to the more advanced levels. Each level of proficiency required appropriate instruction. Drafting, like other vocational industrial arts classes, does not have a state-mandated performance assessment tool. Drafting students are recognized in the private sector by whether they are able to achieve an industry-recognized testing standard of performance. Classroom performance at THS was based upon proficient use of the program utilized to create plans and the written materials that accompanied the computer work. Students eating, sleeping, playing solitaire, computer games, or surfing the Internet did not demonstrate proficient use of drafting skills. All of these behaviors were repeatedly observed in Respondent's class. Respondent did not remediate the performance deficiencies noted in the evaluations of the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 school years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Brevard County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment with the School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Lowicky, Esquire Glickman, Witters and Marrell, P.A. The Centurion, Suite 1101 1601 Forum Place West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Scott Sirmons, Esquire Johnson, Haynes, & Miller 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Thomas Johnson, Esquire Johnson, Haynes & Miller, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 305 Brandon, Florida 33511 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard DiPatri, Ed. D., Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6601
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner properly determined that Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Taylor County, Florida. A Master Teacher Contract between Petitioner and the Taylor Education Association governs relations between Petitioner and its teachers. Respondent is an educator, with 35 years of teaching experience. She is certified by the Florida Department of Education to teach students enrolled in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. Respondent has at least 20 years of experience in teaching ESE students. During the 2009-2010 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as an annual contract teacher at Perry Primary School. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner hired Respondent to work from August 17, 2009, to June 9, 2010. Respondent’s class during the 2009-2010 school year was made up of students with varying exceptionalities. The exceptionalities included handicaps such as specific learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, autism, or emotional or physical handicaps. The class consisted of students in kindergarten, first, and second grades. At the outset of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was assigned eight students, two of which had a full-time personal assistant. Just prior to the Christmas break, Respondent was assigned another ESE student with a full-time personal assistant. The primary responsibility of the personal assistants was to help their designated students function successfully and safely in the classroom. Additionally, the personal assistants were supposed to support the classroom teacher as needed. In addition to the personal assistants, Respondent’s class utilized the services of Behavioral Management Center (BMC). The BMC consultants visited Respondent’s classroom frequently to develop and monitor the implementation of behavior modification plans for certain students. The school psychologist also visited the classroom frequently to assist the teacher and students. Petitioner uses many computer software programs for the testing and monitoring of student progress. The computer programs are necessary in order to comply with Florida Department of Education requirements. The computer programs are used throughout the state and require data entry and transmission at several points in the academic year. Gradequick is a program that enables teachers to electronically enter student grades. Among other tasks, the program calculates grade point averages. The grades and averages are then entered in the Edline program that is accessible by both parents and students. Administrators can access these programs to ascertain the level of progress by a particular class or student. For the 2009-2010 school year, the initial Gradequick and Edline training was conducted the first week of September 2009. Respondent attended the training session. Tienet is a computer program used to assist with the drafting of individual education plans (IEPs) for ESE students. It is a web-based program that also is used to monitor a student’s progress in accomplishing the goals and objectives on the student's IEP. Tienet generates a parent report that goes out with report cards. All students in Respondent’s 2009-2010 class were learning in accordance with an IEP. Aimsweb is a computer program that monitors compliance with state and federal guidelines regarding student achievement and progress in reading and math. Aimsweb requires that all students be tested at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. The teacher uses the initial test or “probe” to determine the child's baseline. Other probes are performed on a weekly basis throughout the school year. Petitioner can use the data to determine if a child is academically at risk and, if so, to implement interventions to address any deficiency. FAIR is a state-mandated assessment test in reading that also is given three times a year. FAIR provides for an exemption for students who are severely limited academically. However, Petitioner always completes the initial FAIR test for all students, regardless of academic ability. After assessing the results of the first probe, Petitioner can then determine whether students will be exempted from further testing. In the 2009-2010 school term, Jack Palaio was an ESE resource teacher and the Perry Primary School technology coordinator. As technology coordinator, Mr. Palaio had to make sure the teachers’ and students’ computers were up and running. He also trained staff and teachers on the use of the computer software programs referenced above. Mr. Palaio’s responsibilities included monitoring data collection and data transmission from the classrooms. On or about September 2, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent provide him with a list of her students. Mr. Palaio needed the names to made sure the students were placed in the proper Gradequick files. As of September 14, 2009, Respondent still had not provided Mr. Palaio with the list of names. In addition to the training sessions taught when school began, Mr. Palaio offered to assist Respondent on several occasions starting at the beginning of the year. At times, Respondent sought help from Mr. Palaio in person or by email. By mid-year, it should not have taken Respondent but a few minutes per student to enter weekly data on Gradequick. Aimsweb should have required no more than five minutes per student on a weekly basis. The FAIR data requires very little time because the teacher enters it while testing the students. Tienet data entry takes even less time because it requires formulation of IEPs only once a year and review and maintenance quarterly. Pam Padgett was the assistant principal at Perry Primary School. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent to provide Ms. Padgett with a copy of Respondent’s class schedule. The schedule was necessary to show the times that Respondent intended to teach specific subject areas. On September 15, 2009, Ms. Padgett also informed Respondent that her students would need to take the initial FAIR and Aimsweb probes in order to establish baselines. Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that other staff members would do this testing for Respondent. In September 2009, two of Respondent’s students were exempt from taking the initial FAIR reading probe because of their disabilities. The two students were supposed to be tested using an alternative assessment known as the Brigance. Petitioner’s staff decided to test the two students on the FAIR material, using a paper test, in addition to the Brigance test. The Brigance test, in booklet form, was supposed to be given three times a year. Teachers used a different color to score students’ tests each time it was administered. On September 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio requested Respondent to see him about testing her students using the Brigance. Mr. Palio also offered to help Respondent set up Edline for her class. Alise Thompson is the Intervention Resource Compliance Specialist at Perry Primary School. In the 2009-2010 school year, she was responsible for ensuring that teachers properly drafted IEPs using Tienet and for scheduling IEP meetings. On September 21, 2009, Ms. Thompson instructed Respondent to prepare the IEP (goals and objectives) for a student. She reminded Respondent that the IEP meeting for the student was scheduled for September 25, 2009. On September 22, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her class was set up in Gradequick so that she could start adding weekly grades. Mr. Palaio asked Respondent to see him for information about entering the grades in Gradequick. On September 29, 2009, Mr. Palaio again reminded Respondent that she needed to enter her grades in Gradequick so that she could send home midterm progress reports the next day. On September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that her kindergarten student needed to have grades entered in the computer on a weekly basis for reading now and for reading, spelling, and math beginning in January. He also reminded Respondent that her first and second grade students needed grades for reading, math, and spelling. As of September 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio had prepared the midterm reports for Respondent’s first and second grade students. He also offered to do the same for the kindergarten student if Respondent would send him the necessary information. Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she had been provided with additional computer training in Edline and needed to post her grades in Gradequick on a weekly basis. The September 30, 2009, email to Respondent told her to put her Brigance booklets back in the students’ cumulative folders in the school office. This was necessary in order to ensure their safekeeping. On October 26, 2009, Perry Primary School was preparing to send report cards home for the first nine weeks. Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent in this regard if she encountered any difficulty. On October 28, 2009, Mr. Palaio offered to help Respondent with entering grades in Gradequick because she was late in doing so. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected some of her inconsistencies, but that he was more concerned with her failure to enter all required grades for her students. Specifically, Mr. Palaio noted that Respondent had not entered grades for some children for over two weeks. George Clayton was the principal of Perry Primary School for the 2009-2010 school year. Around the end of October or the beginning of November 2009, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent a reminder that she was two weeks behind in posting her grades to Edline and entering grades to Gradequick. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to "take care of this matter." Anne Sesock, as the Response to Invention (RTI) Specialist for the 2009-2010 school term, was responsible for monitoring teachers’ data for FAIR and Aimsweb testing at Perry Primary School. Over time, Ms. Sesock became aware that Respondent was behind on her FAIR and Aimsweb testing and/or data entry. On October 29, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers that Thursday was the day they should monitor progress of their students in math using Aimsweb. Ms. Sesock had already entered the students’ names into the computer. Ms. Sesock then gave a brief description of how to perform the task. On October 30, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded certain teachers, including Respondent, that they needed to enter their reading/literacy scores into Aimsweb. This was necessary for the school to prepare for a data meeting. On October 30, 2009, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent that she needed to see about her Tienet progress reports that had to go home with student report cards. Mr. Palaio sent Respondent another message on October 30, 2009. In that message, Mr. Palaio stated that one of Respondent’s students still needed early literacy scores entered in Aimsweb. On November 2, 2009, Perry Primary School sent report cards home. Ms. Padgett asked Respondent to a meeting regarding Respondent’s failure to send Tienet parent reports out with report cards. On November 2009, Mr. Palaio responded to Respondent’s request for help in checking her students’ grades and parent reports. Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that he had corrected the grades in Gradequick so that she would now be entering grades for the second nine weeks. He stated that she had some grades missing and needed to be consistent in entering the grades. He also reminded Respondent that she needed to make corrections in the Tienet parent reports relating to student objectives, which should have been sent home with the last report cards. On November 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock directed Respondent to bring certain Aimsweb reading benchmark assessment sheets to a training session that afternoon. Ms. Sesock offered to enter them in the computer. In November 2009, Mr. Clayton became concerned with the lack of structure and student behavior problems in Respondent’s classroom. He subsequently initiated a plan to provide Respondent with help in this regard. On November 23, 2009, Ms. Padgett advised Respondent that a substitute would be available the next day so that Respondent could meet with school staff and the BMC consultant. The purpose of meeting was to develop a schedule and activities for Respondent’s class. On or about November 24, 2009, Respondent, the BMC consultant, and other school staff members met to develop a Tuesday/Thursday schedule for Respondent’s class. After the meeting, Respondent was supposed to develop a similar schedule for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever completed this task. The Tuesday/Thursday schedule provides for whole group time beginning at 8:00 a.m. As the day progresses, the personal assistants were assigned to work one-on-one with a student, in small groups, or large groups, while Respondent worked one-on- one or two-on-one with specific students. To supplement the Tuesday/Thursday schedule, Respondent and the BMC consultant developed a Tuesday/Thursday Lesson Plan of 1:1 or 2:1 Instructions. The lesson plan names specific students and the skills/materials to be used with that student. On December 1, 2009, BMC staff visited Respondent’s classroom to observe implementation of the new schedule. They advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent stayed on the schedule for part of the day, but failed to follow it for the rest of the day. On December 1, 2009, Ms. Padgett provided Respondent with a copy of a walk-through monitoring form to be used when she and other administrative staff visited Respondent's class. Ms. Padgett reminded Respondent to post her class schedule for all support staff during the times that Respondent and the personal assistants were working one-on-one with students and in group time. On December 2, 2009, Ms. Padgett shared BMC’s concerns with Mr. Clayton. On December 3, 2009, Ms. Padgett visited Respondent’s classroom to observe a reading lesson under the new Tuesday/Thursday schedule. Ms. Padgett noted that Respondent was behind schedule but appeared to be implementing the new plan. Ms. Padgett subsequently provided Respondent with written observations, setting forth strengths, missed opportunities, and something to work on. In December 2009, Ms. Padgett became aware that Respondent had not done the required mid-year FAIR testing or had done the testing but failed to enter the data in the computer. On December 3, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Ms. Padgett that Respondent had not started a single FAIR test. The next day, Ms. Padgett directed Respondent to begin FAIR-testing her students and to get help from Mr. Palaio and/or Ms. Sesock, if needed. On December 4, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent and another teacher that they needed to complete the regress/recoupment forms for their students before Christmas break. The forms are used three times a year to record test data on the same specific skill. The data is used to determine whether a student requires an extended school year (summer school) as an accommodation. On December 7, 2009, Mr. Clayton responded to Ms. Padgett that he was disappointed in Respondent’s failure to adhere to the new schedule. Mr. Clayton stated that he would be visiting Respondent’s class that day. From December 8, 2009, through December 11, 2009, Respondent was absent from school because she had pneumonia. During that week, Respondent came to school one time for a meeting at Mr. Clayton’s request. The meeting related to a student that would soon be entering Respondent’s class. There is no record of Respondent receiving emails from school while she was home sick. Accordingly, the following emails dated December 8 through 11 may not have been read by Respondent until she returned to school on December 14, 2009. On December 8, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He advised her that certain students were missing a spelling score in the FAIR testing. On December 9, 2009, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that an IEP meeting was scheduled on December 11, 2009, for "O." Ms. Thompson had started the IEP but reminded Respondent to add the goals. The December 11, 2009, IEP meeting obviously had to be cancelled because Respondent was home sick and had not completed drafting the IEP. On December 10, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded her that she needed to enter FAIR scores for spelling. On December 11, 2009, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. Once again, he reminded Respondent to complete the regress/recoup form with all students that week. On December 16, 2009, Mr. Palaio advised Respondent that the initial regress/recoup testing had been done by another staff member the week before and that he had entered the scores. Mr. Palaio provided Respondent with a spreadsheet showing the results of the first probe that needed to be repeated the first day after Christmas break and then again two weeks later. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Palaio reviewed the policy at Perry Primary School regarding the need to check email three or four times a day. Teachers were supposed to read email before school, after reading, during lunch, and after school. Respondent was advised that teachers are held responsible for knowing the information contained in school emails, including requests for specific data. On December 17, 2009, Ms. Sesock reminded all teachers to complete their Aimsweb math and reading probes. Ms. Sesock wanted all teachers to enter the data that day or the next day so that the data would be available in January for intervention assistance team meetings. In an email dated January 3, 2010, Ms. Sesock wanted to know about missing scores in Respondent’s Aimsweb progress monitoring. Ms. Sesock could not run charts on the students until all scores were entered in the computer. January 4, 2010, was a teacher-planning day. During the day, Mr. Palaio sent Ms. Sesock a list of teachers, including Respondent, who had missing Aimsweb data as of December 18, 2009. Ms. Sesock responded with an email inquiring whether they could give Respondent an explicit instruction booklet on how to input scores so Respondent would learn to do it herself and quit bothering them. On January 4, 2010, Mr. Palaio reminded Respondent and other teachers that they needed to complete the second set of regress/recoup progress monitoring. He advised them to use the spreadsheet started before Christmas and to repeat the process on January 19, 2010. On January 5, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him about Aimsweb and Brigance. He wanted to assist her with the Brigance books and Aimsweb probes. On January 5, 2010, Respondent injured her shoulder and knee when she fell after tripping over a student at school. She was prescribed pain medication (Vicodin and Celebrex) and required to wear a leg brace. Respondent claims that the medications made her sleepy and made it difficult for her to focus. However, she did not complain to anyone at Perry Primary School that the medications were interfering with her performance. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent and other teachers about completing IEPs. Specifically, she reminded them that they needed to enter the accommodations for each child on an individual basis. On January 11, 2010, Mr. Palaio requested that Respondent see him that day. Mr. Palaio wanted to discuss Respondent’s scores for Brigance, Aimsweb, and Tienet. By January 2010, Mr. Clayton was aware that Respondent and the three personal assistants in her classroom were not working as a team. The personal assistants resented having to work with small or large groups of students while Respondent worked with students on a one-on-one or two-on-one basis. Mr. Clayton had a meeting with Respondent and her personal assistants on January 13, 2010. He gave the personal assistants a copy of their job descriptions. He reminded them that Respondent was the class leader and that they were her support staff. On January 13, 2010, Mr. Clayton told the personal assistants that they had to stay with their assigned students when BMC staff came to model implementation or observe implementation of a behavior plan. He did not want the assistants to think they could take a break every time BMC staff visited the classroom. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton discussed the Tuesday/Thursday schedule developed by BMC staff. He requested that Respondent develop a Monday/Wednesday/Friday schedule, using the same format, and give it to him. Mr. Clayton was concerned that there was not a consistent daily routine in Respondent’s classroom. Mr. Clayton also discussed Respondent’s lesson plans during the January 13, 2010, meeting. Mr. Clayton wanted Respondent to give him a copy of her lesson plans for the upcoming week every Friday before she left school. The first Friday that Respondent should have given Mr. Clayton her lesson plans was on Friday, January 15, 2010. As a general rule, teachers kept their lesson plans, two weeks in advance, in spiral notebooks provided by the school at the beginning of the school year. Teachers were supposed to keep the lesson plan books on their desks at all times. Mr. Clayton reviewed the lesson plans on a regular basis. Mr. Clayton made the special request on January 13, 2010, about Respondent’s lesson plans because he never saw her plan book on her desk. When he asked about the plan book, Respondent always said it was in her car or at home. During the January 13, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton instructed Respondent to provide each personal assistant with a copy of the IEPs and behavior plans for each student in the class. Mr. Clayton wanted the personal assistants to be familiar with all of the students’ IEPs and behavior plans so that they would know what to do in the absence of Respondent or a colleague. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent never complied with Mr. Clayton’s directive in this regard. Finally, Mr. Clayton told Respondent on January 13, 2010, that her class would be moved that weekend from a portable classroom to a classroom in the main building. The purpose of the move was to place the class closer to the school clinic to accommodate a student with medical issues. Mr. Clayton created written minutes of the January 13, 2010, meeting to share with Respondent and the personal assistants. Following the meeting on January 13, 2010, the assistants became more cooperative. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Sesock told Respondent how important it was for her to have up-to-date progress monitoring data for Aimsweb reading and math. At that time, Respondent had not entered the required weekly progress monitoring data, seven scores in math and five scores in reading. The second benchmark assessment for Aimsweb was due to be entered between January 11, 2010, and January 15, 2010. Ms. Sesock wanted to make sure that Respondent had all the materials she needed to perform the assessment. On January 13, 2010, Ms. Thompson reminded Respondent that "O's" IEP meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2010. Ms. Thompson requested that Respondent update his academic and behavior goals before the meeting. The next day, Ms. Thompson directed Respondent to update "O's" curriculum and behavior goals. On January 15, 2010, the IEP meeting had to be rescheduled because Respondent did not have “O’s” IEP properly drafted. Ms. Thompson sent an email to Respondent, stating that Respondent needed to separate goals and objectives on the IEP by subject area. For example, Respondent needed one goal and two objectives for reading, math, and behavior. After receiving a copy of Ms. Thompson’s January 15, 2010, email to Respondent, Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete “O’s” IEP goals by January 19, 2010. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to put the IEP in his mailbox before she left school on the 19th. On January 15, 2010, Respondent did not provide Mr. Clayton with the lesson plans for the upcoming week. Instead, she left school early for a doctor’s appointment and took the rest of the day off. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that he had reviewed her Aimsweb data and that it was not updated. He told her to update the reading and math data before she left school on January 21, 2010. During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent had completed two IEPs before attempting the IEP for “O.” However, Respondent failed to complete “O’s” IEP and place it in Mr. Clayton's mailbox on January 19, 2010, as requested. On January 19, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an internet link for Tienet. Apparently, Respondent had lost the website address. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Clayton issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for “insubordination” for failing to complete “O’s” IEP on time. Respondent received the January 21, 2010, letter of reprimand, concerning the IEP, in her mailbox at school. Respondent’s failure to timely complete the IEP was gross insubordination. Respondent had been given more than enough time and assistance to properly draft the IEP. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent’s pain medication was responsible for her inability to complete the IEP. On January 21, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that corrections still needed to be made to “O’s” IEP. Respondent was told that each area of the IEP needed a present- level statement followed by at least one goal and two objectives. Later that day, Mr. Palaio gave Respondent additional suggestions to make the IEP meet Petitioner’s ESE standards. On January 21, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. The message reminded Respondent that most of her Aimsweb scores had not been entered. On the morning of January 22, 2010, Mr. Clayton shared some of his concerns with Respondent in an email. First, he discussed Respondent’s need to conduct Aimsweb progress monitoring probes in reading and math. Second, Mr. Clayton was worried about Respondent’s failure to enter grades in Gradequick, advising her to see Mr. Palaio by the end of the day to resolve this matter. Third, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she needed to be using the school-wide behavior modification program. Fourth, Mr. Clayton noted some errors in “O’s” IEP. Fifth, Mr. Clayton told Respondent not to forget to do the ESE regress/recoup form. Finally, Mr. Clayton reminded Respondent that she was supposed to provide him with a copy of her lesson plans before leaving school that afternoon. Mr. Clayton wanted to make sure that Respondent received his January 22, 2010, email. He asked his assistant to call Respondent that afternoon. Realizing that Respondent was not in her classroom, Mr. Clayton requested the assistant to call Respondent’s cell phone and her husband’s cell phone. Because Mr. Clayton could not reach Respondent, he sent her another email at 3:55 p.m., telling her to contact Mr. Palaio if she and he were still on campus. Respondent left school on Friday, January 22, 2010, without giving Mr. Clayton her lesson plans. At 5:51 p.m. on January 22, 2010, Mr. Palaio sent Respondent an email. He reminded her to do her quarterly Tienet progress reports that were due to go home with report cards on January 27, 2010. On Monday morning, January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton sent Respondent an email. The message stated that administration wanted to meet with her at 2:30 in Mr. Clayton’s office. Respondent was advised that she could bring union representation to the meeting. During the meeting on January 25, 2010, Mr. Clayton discussed Respondent’s failure to provide him with her lesson plans as directed. Mr. Clayton also told Respondent that her failure to complete a task by a given date constituted insubordination and served as grounds for termination. During the January 25, 2010, meeting, Mr. Clayton told Respondent that she had a chance to resign. Mr. Clayton stated that if she did not resign, he would contact the Superintendant and recommend her termination. Respondent could not make a decision to resign without talking to someone. Mr. Clayton told Respondent to let him know her decision by Wednesday, January 27, 2010. Respondent did not do so. At some point in time, Mr. Clayton placed a letter of reprimand, dated January 25, 2010, in Respondent's mailbox for failing to provide him a copy of her lesson plans on January 15, 2010, and on January 22, 2010. Mr. Clayton noted in the letter that he still had not received Respondent's lesson plans. Following the meeting, on January 25, 2010, Respondent got materials ready for her students for the remainder of the week. Respondent did not return to work until Monday, February 1, 2010. On January 26, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent by email that “O’s” goals and objectives were looking better. However, Ms. Thompson noted certain corrections needed to be made. Ms. Thompson placed a draft copy of the IEP, with notations, in Respondent’s mailbox. When Respondent returned to school on February 1, 2010, she gave Mr. Clayton a very detailed copy of her lesson plans for February 1, 2010, through February 12, 2010. The lesson plans were in a narrative form and not in a lesson plan book form that contains plans for a week at a glance. Even though the plans were not drafted according to Perry Primary School policy and were not the plans expected, Mr. Clayton provided Respondent with a lengthy critique of the lesson plans. On February 1, 2010, Mr. Clayton advised Respondent that she needed to complete the regress/recoup spreadsheet. He also told her that she still needed to fix “O’s” IEP by February 3, 2010, and before the IEP meeting on February 10, 2010. Mr. Clayton directed Respondent to complete the January Brigance testing before she left work on February 5, 2010. On February 1, 2010, Ms. Padgett sent Respondent an email regarding the reading programs in Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Padgett told Respondent that Ms. Padgett and the BMC staff had made certain decisions about the reading program while Respondent was absent from school. On February 2, 2010, Ms. Thompson advised Respondent that "O's" IEP was better. However, Ms. Thompson noted that Respondent needed to work on the reading goal and two objectives. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Thompson stated that she had met with Mr. Palaio and that he had offered some suggestions for “O’s” IEP. Ms. Thompson's message included a copy of a draft IEP prepared by Mr. Palaio. In a letter dated February 3, 2010, Mr. Clayton recommended that the Superintendant terminate Respondent’s employment. The letter references Respondent’s failure to provide him with lesson plans and the associated reprimand. The letter does not refer to Respondent’s reprimand for not completing the IEP goals. Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter also included the following deficiencies: (a) Respondent never provided the personal assistants with the student behavior plans as instructed on January 13, 2010; (b) Respondent did not have her Brigance testing up to date; and (c) Respondent’s Aimsweb data was not up to date. In a letter dated February 5, 2010, Paul Dyal, Superintendant of Taylor County School District, advised Respondent that her employment was suspended with pay as of February 8, 2010. Mr. Dyal stated that the action was based on Respondent’s insubordination as outlined in Mr. Clayton’s February 3, 2010, letter. Mr. Dyal’s letter was hand-delivered to Respondent on February 5, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That The Taylor County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela M. Ball, Esquire Post Office Box 734 Perry, Florida 32348 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Levine & Stivers, LLC 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Dyal, Superintendent Taylor County School District Alton J. Wentworth Administrative Office Complex 318 North Clark Street Perry, Florida 32347 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact For approximately seven years, William Mitchell (Respondent) was employed as a custodian with the Monroe County School Board (Petitioner). Until 1997, Respondent worked at night at Horace Bryant Middle School, coming to work around 2:00 p.m. Respondent had very little contact with students during the school day at Horace Bryant Middle School. In or about 1997, Respondent voluntarily transferred to Key West High School and worked during the school day where he had contact with students on a regular basis. As a custodian, Respondent had no responsibility for student discipline at either school. At the time of the hearing Respondent was 53 years of age. He was described by his supervisor at Key West High School as a good employee. Respondent was considered hardworking and gentlemanly. Respondent was not known to be a violent man and had not exhibited any violent or aggressive behavior. Respondent's duties, as custodian at Key West High School, included replenishing the soda can machine and removing the money from the machine in the mornings. In the early part of March 1998, while Respondent was replenishing the machine with sodas, a student, Jerome Simmons,1 took one of the sodas from the machine. Respondent approached Simmons and questioned him regarding the soda, but Simmons denied taking the soda. Respondent believed that Simmons was not telling the truth. The soda was not in Simmons' possession and could not be found. Respondent was aware that it was appropriate for him to report misconduct by a student to the assistant principal or the school resource officer. Respondent reported the incident to the assistant principal, Robert Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher questioned Simmons who again denied taking the soda. Mr. Fletcher determined that nothing could be done because Simmons denied taking the soda and the soda was not in Simmons' possession. Simmons was an eighteen-year-old senior at Key West High School. He was stocky, well built, and muscular, having the appearance of someone who lifts weights. Simmons' tenure at Key West High School had not been without incident. He had been disruptive and been disciplined, which included suspension. John Welsh, an assistant principal, whose responsibilities included discipline of students, was very familiar with Simmons. Mr. Welsh observed, among other things, that Simmons was the kind of person who was likely to get the last word in an argument. A few weeks after the soda incident, on March 23, 1998, Simmons was returning from a meeting with his probation officer at the administrative office of Key West High School when he encountered Respondent who was going to the administrative office to obtain the key for the soda can machine. They were passing one another in a narrow hallway, and Simmons deliberately bumped Respondent; Simmons had sufficient room on his side of the hall to pass Respondent without bumping him. Respondent reacted to the deliberate bump by telling Simmons to look where he was going. Simmons mumbled something unintelligible to Respondent, who continued walking to the administrative office and obtained the key for the soda machine. Even though the assistant principal was located in the administrative office, Respondent did not report the incident. Based upon the last encounter with Simmons, Respondent believed that he needed more than an intentional bump and something mumbled unintelligible by Simmons to demonstrate misconduct by Simmons. After obtaining the key for the soda machine, Respondent proceeded to the soda machine to replenish it with sodas. While Respondent was filling the soda machine, Simmons approached Respondent from the side, staying approximately ten to fifteen feet away from Respondent, and again mumbled something unintelligible. Respondent did not want to stop his work and stated to Simmons that, if Simmons wanted somebody to play with, he'd better go home and play because he (Respondent) had children older than Simmons. Even though Respondent used the term play, Respondent did not believe that Simmons was playing. Respondent did not report this second encounter to the assistant principal or the school resource officer. Respondent again believed that he needed more than what had happened based upon the previous soda incident involving Simmons that he (Respondent) had reported. Simmons walked away from Respondent toward the gym and again mumbled something unintelligible. However, Simmons did clearly say to Respondent, "come on." Respondent followed Simmons in hopes of being able to decipher what Simmons was mumbling in order to report Simmons if Simmons was saying anything inappropriate, as Respondent believed. It was not inappropriate for Respondent to follow Simmons. When Simmons entered the gym, he approached a physical education teacher, Nancy Thiel, and informed her that a janitor wanted to fight him. Very shortly thereafter, Ms. Thiel saw Respondent at the doorway to the gym. Simmons knew that Ms. Thiel was conducting class in the gym because, approximately twenty minutes earlier, she had directed Simmons to leave the gym since he was not in her class. A finding of fact is made that Simmons' remark that a janitor wanted to fight him is untrustworthy and not made under the stress of excitement. Simmons was calm, not appearing excited, and was relaxed when he made the remark. A finding of fact is further made that Simmons made the remark to shield himself from any wrongdoing and to make it appear that Respondent was the aggressor. Ms. Thiel was standing next to Simmons when Respondent came to the doorway to the gym. Respondent appeared calm and relaxed, not angry. Respondent again stated to Simmons that, if Simmons wanted somebody to play with, he'd better go home and play because he (Respondent) had children older than Simmons. Simmons removed his shirt and remarked to Respondent, "You want some of this," and proceeded out of the gym to the walkway where Respondent was standing. Respondent knew when Simmons removed his shirt that he (Simmons) was serious and wanted to fight. Respondent remarked, "Let's go."2 When Respondent realized that Simmons was serious and wanted to fight, Respondent was presented with an opportunity, although of short duration, to remove himself from the confrontation. Respondent failed to leave the immediate area of the confrontation and report the incident to an assistant principal or to a school resource officer. Respondent and Simmons confronted one another. They glared at one another and, almost simultaneously, lunged at one another.3 Simmons grabbed Respondent at the bottom of both Respondent's legs; Respondent lowered his weight so as not to allow Simmons to pick him up and throw him to the ground on the concrete. They wrestled and both of them fell to the ground on the dirt and sand area, avoiding the concrete area, with Simmons landing on top of Respondent and being in control. The struggle was over very quickly. No punches were thrown by either Simmons or Respondent. No criminal charges were filed by either Simmons or Respondent against one another. Petitioner has a policy prohibiting fighting at the workplace. Petitioner's policy does not prevent an employee from acting in self-defense. Moreover, if an employee is defending himself or herself and fighting ensues, the employee would not be terminated for fighting. An employee is considered to have acted in self-defense if a student lunged at the employee and the employee held the student and, while holding the student, both the employee and the student wrestle to the ground. Respondent was not acting in self-defense. When Simmons removed his shirt and remarked whether Respondent wanted some of him, Respondent had an opportunity to remove himself from the confrontation and report the situation to an assistant principal or school resource officer. Instead, Respondent chose to continue with the confrontation which led to physical contact between Simmons and Respondent. According to the principal of Key West High School at the time of the incident, teachers receive training related to student behavior/relations as part of their professional training; and educators must adhere to the Florida Code of Ethics, which, among other things, governs their interaction with students. However, no such training and no information is disseminated to support personnel, such as Respondent, regarding standards of behavior between employees and students. Even though custodians are not licensed or trained educators, custodians, according to the principal, are held to the same level of behavior as educators. Furthermore, according to Petitioner's Director of Support Services, Robert Menendez, all school employees, including custodians, are held to a higher standard. Mr. Menendez also indicated that there is an implied code, which is a common sense approach, that employees do not confront students on school campus and create problems. This higher standard and implied code were not communicated to the custodians, including Respondent, and the custodians did not receive training regarding handling conflicts with students or aggressive students. If an employee is being held to a standard, the employee should be informed of the standard and, if required, receive appropriate training regarding the standard. Where there is an absence of communication or information or an absence of appropriate training regarding the standard, the employee cannot be held to the standard since the employee has no knowledge of the standard or has not received the appropriate training for the standard. However, in the instant case, although the higher standard and implied code were not communicated to Respondent and he did not receive training regarding handling conflicts with students or aggressive students, Respondent knew that he could report misconduct by a student to the assistant principal or school resource officer. Respondent failed to make such a report and, instead, chose to confront Simmons. Consequently, the absence of knowledge of a standard or the absence of training on the standard is of no consequence in the instant case. After an investigation, Mr. Menendez determined that Respondent had violated Petitioner's policy prohibiting fighting at the workplace and recommended to the Superintendent of Monroe County schools that Respondent be terminated from employment with Petitioner. Subsequent to Mr. Menendez's recommendation, a review of the incident was conducted by Petitioner's Director of Human Resources, Michael Wheeler, whose role was that of a hearing officer. Mr. Wheeler reviewed the allegations of misconduct against Respondent. Mr. Wheeler determined, based upon his review, that Respondent had violated Petitioner's policy against fighting at the workplace and recommended Respondent's termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Monroe County School Board enter a final order sustaining the dismissal of William Mitchell and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 23rd day of July, 1999.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner should discharge Respondent from her employment because of misconduct, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty that impaired Respondent's effectiveness as Petitioner's employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of St. Johns County, Florida. Until September 12, 1996, Petitioner employed Respondent as a non-instructional employee. Respondent was a janitorial custodian. Petitioner requested numerous employees, including Respondent and eight other custodians, to work on Saturday, August 24, 1996, at Nease High School. The purpose was to prepare the campus for the upcoming school year. Mr. Jody Hunter, the coordinator of school-based maintenance and custodial services, asked all nine custodians, including Respondent, to stop what they were doing and to immediately remove all of the empty boxes from the classrooms. The boxes needed to be outside the buildings so that they could be collected for disposal and so that furniture could be set up in each classroom. The crews in charge of collecting and disposing of the boxes and those in charge of furniture set-up were on precise schedules. The other maintenance tasks that needed to be performed by the custodians, including Respondent, could be performed at other times. All of the custodians except Respondent complied with the instructions of Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter repeated the instructions to Respondent several times. Respondent insisted on working in accordance with her own schedule and priorities. After a reasonable time, Mr. Hunter inspected the area for which Respondent was responsible. He found boxes in the area and saw Respondent walking down the hallway with a bag and supplies in her hand. Mr. Hunter asked Respondent why she had not complied with his instructions. She stated that she did not like to start another job before she finished the first job. Mr. Hunter repeated the need and the urgency of getting the boxes out of the area so that the other crews could stay on schedule. Respondent stated that she did not have to listen to Mr. Hunter because it was a Saturday and because he was not her supervisor. Respondent never removed the boxes in her area. Mr. Hunter had several conversations with Respondent regarding her refusal to follow his instructions. Respondent became very loud and obstreperous during at least one of those conversations. Other employees heard Respondent from different areas of the campus. Mr. Hunter conducted himself professionally during each of these conversations. During one of the conversations, Mr. Hunter requested Ms. Alice Powell, a teacher, to witness a portion of the conversation. Respondent left work before completing her assigned duties. She refused to answer questions from Mr. Hunter as to where she was going or if she would return. Respondent returned to the campus later in the day with her daughter. Respondent's daughter acted as an interpreter. Through her daughter, Respondent asked Mr. Hunter to write down everything he had said to Respondent during the day. When Mr. Hunter refused, Respondent threatened to sue Mr. Hunter for "violating her rights." Mr. Hunter asked Respondent to leave the premises. Respondent refused. Respondent stated that Mr. Hunter had never dealt with Puerto Ricans before and that they take care of their own problems. Mr. Hunter asked Respondent if she was threatening him, and Respondent said, "yes." Mr. Hunter telephoned Mr. Bill Mignon, the principal of the school. Mr. Mignon spoke to Respondent by telephone. Mr. Mignon asked Respondent to leave the campus and to discuss the matter in his office on Monday. Respondent left the campus but did not keep her appointment on Monday. Petitioner suspended Respondent with pay pending an investigation of the matter. Mr. Mignon and Mr. Clayton Wilcox, Petitioner's director of personnel, conducted an investigation into the matter. They interviewed witnesses, including Respondent, and reviewed written statements. On September 12, 1996, the Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay. Respondent now has a full-time position with another employer. Respondent was previously disciplined by Petitioner. In April, 1995, Petitioner verbally reprimanded Respondent for misusing time cards by leaving work and having another employee punch Respondent's time card at a later time. In May, 1996, Petitioner gave Respondent a written reprimand for taking excessive lunch breaks. In May, 1996, Petitioner issued a memorandum to Respondent for failing to comply with requirements for excused absences.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty and terminating Respondent's employment. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Hugh Balboni, Superintendent St. Johns County School Board 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dennis K. Bayer, Esquire Attorney at Law 306 South Oceanshore Boulevard (A1A) Post Office Box 1505 Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Anna I. Oquendo, pro se 21 Madeore Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gloria E. Walker, holds Teaching Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida. Respondent is certified to teach in the area of music education. Respondent has been employed as a Music Teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County since 1970. From 1973 until 1986, Respondent taught music at Dunbar Elementary School in the Dade County School District. During the 1970-71 through 1977-78 school years, Respondent received either unacceptable or marginally acceptable scores for five of the seven years on her annual evaluations. (Petitioner's Exhibits 29). During the 1973-79 school year, the School Board altered its evaluations System for instructional Personnel. During the 78-79 through 83-84 school years, Respondent's annual evaluations were rated as acceptable. However, during the school years 1981- 82 through 83-84, school and district Personnel made comments concerning Respondent's need to improve her performance and development in certain areas. (TR 298). Commencing with the 1973 school year, Respondent received assistance from Charles Buckwalter, music specialist for elementary schools for the Dade County School District. Respondent was initially contacted by Mr. Buckwalter that year because of concerns the school's Principal expressed regarding Respondent's lack of classroom management. During that year, Mr. Buckwalter visited and provided assistance to Respondent approximately seven (7) times. Mr. Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent continued during the following three (3) years. During the 1981-82 school year, Mr. Buckwalter assisted Respondent on more than four occasions during which time he attempted to demonstrate lessons concerning management techniques and the use of new materials; objectives of instruction and on January 26, 1982, Buckwalter, along with Dr. Howard Doolin supervisor of music for Dade County, visited Respondent so that Dr. Doolin could observe Buckwalter's assistance to Respondent. On April 26, 1982, Respondent and Mr. Buckwalter met for approximately three and one half hours. Buckwalter visited several of Respondent classes and demonstrated the use of certain new materials. As a part of that visit, he observed Respondent's teaching and noted that Respondent abandoned the new materials and returned to teaching the old curriculum. On November 11, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter spent approximately three hours with Respondent in which time he visited two classes and had a conference with Respondent concerning the new curriculum for level 1 students. On November 18, 1982, Mr. Buckwalter made a follow-up visit concerning Respondent's lesson plans and objectives. Additionally, he demonstrated a lesson to one of Respondent's classes. On or about November 29, 1982, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal, H. Elizabeth Tynes. Ms. Tynes has a wealth of experience lasting more than thirty years in both Hillsborough and Dade Counties. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship and in a subcategory of assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on a large number of disruptive students in her music class and Respondent's inability to control the students' behavior through either verbal or nonverbal strategies. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her failure to demonstrate consistency as concerns student behavior, failing to praise good behavior and reprimand students for disruptive conduct. On another occasion, assistant principal Tynes listened to a musical program Respondent's students were giving over the intercom system. Ms. Tynes rated the program a "total disaster". Ms. Tynes and the principal were "ashamed" of what they heard from Respondent's music class. Respondent demonstrated skills preparation for the program as observed by Ms. Tynes. On May 19, 1983, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Katherine Dinkin, who was then principal of Dunbar Elementary School. Following the observation, Respondent was evaluated unacceptable in areas of classroom management, teacher/student relationship, and techniques of instruction. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). Principal Dinkins observed that Respondent's students were not on task, the classroom was chaotic and the students only responded to directives of the Principal, as a Person of authority. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instructions based on Ms. Dinkin's observation that students were being taught at levels beyond their ability; class openings and closings were not done appropriately and Respondent failed to develop a plan for the individual needs, interests and abilities of students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of teacher/student relationships based on her failure to demonstrate warmth toward the students and her inability to command respect. During this period in 1983, principal Dinkins prescribed help for Respondent as concerns observing and working with other teachers for guidance. On April 12, 1984, Respondent was again formally observed by principal Dinkins and rated unacceptable in classroom management and techniques of instructions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management based on her demonstrated inability to keep students on task or to develop strategies to control their behavior. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instructions based on an inadequately prepared lesson plan and an inability to deliver the instructional components to students. Principal Dinkins observed that the material Respondent attempted to teach was too complicated for the students and she failed to Properly sequence her instructions. Principal Dinkins, who was tendered and received as an expert in the areas of teacher observation and assessment, was unable to observe any continuum of improvement by Respondent over the extended period of Principal Dinkins' supervision. Principal Dinkins opined that Respondent deprived her students of the minimal educational experience in music. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again received help from Mr. Buckwalter. As part of this help, Mr. Buckwalter organized small study groups in order to improve instructions throughout the music education department. These groups met on September 28, October 19, November 9 and 30, 1983. Respondent was asked to become part of the study group. The study group was Particularly concerned with focusing on the scope and sequence of curriculum, students' achievement and implementation of certain aspects of the curriculum, particularly as concern level 1 and 2 students. On or about August 30, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter spent the day with Respondent and a new music teacher, Ronald Gold. On or about September 27, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours in which time he visited three of her classes and again attempted to discuss some work with Respondent concerning student management techniques including the use of a seating chart. On or about October 18, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent approximately four hours during which time he visited several classes and observed her using ideas gleaned from the study group. On or about November 7, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter again visited with Respondent for approximately four hours. After the conference, he taught classes with her and implemented the use of instruments to enrich the class lesson as well as the implementation and use of progress charts. On or about December 9, 1983, Mr. Buckwalter visited with Respondent for approximately 3 hours. At this time, Mr. Buckwalter expressed concern in that Respondent was not clearly understanding the intent of the school board curriculum. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instructions, teacher/students relationships, assessment techniques and professional responsibility during her annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year. On or about October 29, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Edwardo Martinez. Although Respondent was rated acceptable, this class was not a typical situation but rather a rehearsal of a specific program. On other occasions, assistant principal Martinez had opportunities to walk by Respondent's classroom. He often noted loud noises emanating from her classroom. During these instances, he would enter the room and immediately settle the students down. On March 26, 1985, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Maybelline Truesdell, Principal of Dunbar Elementary. Based on this formal observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, instructional techniques and teacher/student relationships. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). As a result of the unacceptable evaluation, Respondent was given a prescription form suggesting methods in which she could improve areas in which she was rated unacceptable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of classroom management based on her inability to retain the students attention; her failure to open and close classes appropriately and her general observation of students being off task. Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of instructional techniques based on the observation that she did not interact verbally with students; students were inappropriately excluded from participating in discussions of the lesson and Respondent did not use instructional methods/materials which were appropriate for the students' learning levels. (TR pages 30-35). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of student/teacher relationships based on her improper focusing on a small number of students; inappropriately criticizing a student assistant in the presence of other students, and a failure to use sufficient positive interaction to maintain class control. On may 3, 1985, Respondent was again formally observed by Maybelline Truesdell and rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management; instructional techniques; student/teacher relationships and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of classroom management as she failed to properly discipline students; failed to maintain classroom control and students were off task. In the area of techniques of instruction, Respondent received an unacceptable rating in one category which remained unremediated pursuant to a prior prescription issued by Ms. Truesdell. Respondent was again rated unacceptable in the area of teacher/student relationship based on her inability to display any of the indicators considered necessary to become acceptable and her continued rejection of students who volunteered or attempted to participate; her failure to involve the entire class by focusing her attention on a small number of students to the exclusion of others and her failure to appropriately address students by their name rather than "you." (TR 39-41). Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based on her failure to follow county and state guidelines for assessing students. Specifically, Respondent failed to provide substantial evidence of (documentation) to justify grades assigned to students and her grade books did not indicate if or when she was giving formal quizzes or tests. In addition, there was no letter grade or numerical indication in Respondent's grade books to gauge academic progress. Additionally, there was insufficient documentation in the student folders to back-up student progress or to otherwise substantiate the grades assigned to students. During the 1984-85 school year, Mr. Buckwalter returned to Dunbar Elementary to again assist Respondent. On September 6, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited Respondent for approximately three hours during which time he visited a class; co-taught a class and attempted to assist Respondent concerning improvement in areas of student behavior and management. On November 2, 1984, Mr. Buckwalter visited one of Respondent's classes. He thereafter visited Respondent on March 22, 1985 at which time he spent approximately two hours in her classroom. He taught five classes to demonstrate strategies of progressing students from one level to another. He thereafter conferred with Respondent concerning the need to reflect a positive attitude toward students.. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter again visited Respondent. Respondent was then using materials suggested by Mr. Buckwalter although she utilized them in a "rote" manner and included too many concepts within a single lesson. On April 18, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter returned to observe Respondent. The students were going over materials that had been taught in past years and the new curriculum was not being taught. On May 23, 1985, Mr. Buckwalter spent four hours with Respondent. They concentrated on the development of lesson plans; planned activities concerning class objectives and stressed the need to remain-on one concept until it was understood by a majority of the class. Respondent's evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge instructional techniques; teacher/student relationships; assessment techniques and Professional responsibility. On October 10, 1985, Respondent was formally observed by assistant principal William J. Kinney. Respondent was rated acceptable in the area of assessment techniques. Mr. Kinney offered certain suggestions to Respondent including the fact that the lesson taught would be more beneficial by more student participation. Respondent was advised of a need to immediately cure problems respecting students who were observed hitting bells with pencils and pens and the need to immediately address problems when students were observed off task. During the school year, Mr. Kinney made numerous informal visits to Respondent's classroom at which times he observed loud noises coming from Respondent's classes, chanting, fighting, furniture pushed into the walls, student misbehavior and other indications that Respondent's classroom management was ineffective. On December 3, 1985, Respondent was officially observed by principal Truesdell and was rated unacceptable in the areas of instructional and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent was made aware of her continuing problems and was provided with an acknowledged receipt of a summary of the conference-for-the-record dated Thursday, December 12, 1985. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Additionally, Respondent was given specific instructions in the form of a prescription concerning her grade book and instructed to strictly follow the conduct prescribed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). In the opinion of principal Truesdell (received as an expert in the area of teacher assessment teacher evaluation, teacher observation in the role of school principal) Respondent was unacceptable for further employment by the school district, was continuing to demonstrate ineffective classroom management, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and had done so for such an extended period of time that improvement appeared unlikely. Additionally, Ms. Truesdell considered that Respondent was unable to make sufficient competent analysis of students' individual needs and potential in the classroom; failed to ensure and promote the accomplishment of tasks to the proper selection and use of appropriate techniques; failed to establish routine and procedures for the use of materials and physical movements of students in her class; failed to employ the appropriate techniques to correct inappropriate student behavior; failed to demonstrate competence in evaluating learning and goal achievement by her students and failed to demonstrate appropriate interpersonal skills required of a teacher to maintain discipline and effectively teach in a classroom environment. On February 7, 1986, Respondent was officially observed in her class by Marilyn Von Seggern, music supervisor for Dade County and by Ms. McCalla, assistant principal at Dunbar, under the provision of the TADS program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). Following that observation, Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter knowledge, instructional techniques, assessment techniques and teacher/student relationships. In the Professional opinion of Marilyn Von Seggern, received herein as an expert in the areas of music education, teacher observation and assessment, Respondent was depriving students of the minimum educational experience and had serious problems concerning her ability to communicate and relate to students respecting the music curriculum. On January 16, 1986, Respondent was formally observed in her classroom by Dunbar's assistant principal Carolyn Louise McCalla, and was rated unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). Based on Mr. Buckwalter's repeated observation of Respondent's classroom and teaching techniques, Mr. Buckwalter opined that Respondent's students were not receiving the minimum education required by the Dade County School System as concerns the curriculum for music. As example, on one occasion Mr. Buckwalter observed Respondent presenting an organized lesson to students which was quite successful and upon his return approximately five minutes later, Mr. Buckwalter observed that Respondent was not teaching the new successful lesson but had instead reverted back to an old lesson and her students were observed inattentive and generally off task. (TR pages 250-254). On March 26, 1986, Respondent was having difficulty maintaining her students' attention to the point that the students were out of control. While Respondent was attempting to stop a certain student from chanting and beating on the desk, Respondent tried to restrain the student and in so doing, Respondent broke her watch band and scratched the student on her face. The student required hospitalization and although the injury was deemed an accident, Respondent's lack of classroom control and management played a major part in causing the incident. Pursuant to a request by the School Board, Respondent, on April 30, 1986, was evaluated by psychiatrist, Gail D. Wainger. Dr. Wainger took a medical history from Respondent which included Respondent's revelation of previous psychiatrist treatment. Dr. Wainger observed that Respondent had a very flattened, blunted affect with little emotional expression. She related that this was a sign of a patient who was recovering from a major psychiatric episode. Additionally, Respondent showed difficulty recalling recent events. Dr. Wainger diagnosed Respondent as having chronic residual schizophrenia with a possible personality disorder including impulsive and avoidance features. Dr. Wainger opined that a person with such diagnosis would have difficulty being an authority figure and that this would be especially Problematic for students who needed positive reinforcement. On April 28, 1986, Respondent attended a conference-for-the-record with the school board's administrative staff. A past history of performance and evaluations was reviewed. Additionally, the investigative report concerning the injury of the student which occurred March 26, 1986 was also reviewed. Respondent was informed that the matter would be referred to the School Board for possible disciplinary action. (Petitioner's Exhibit 31). On May 21, 1986, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent's employment and initiated the instant dismissal proceeding against her. (Petitioner's Exhibit 32). For the 1985-86 school year, Respondent's annual evaluation indicated that she was rated unacceptable in five of seven categories and was not recommended for re-employment. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension, without pay, of Respondent, Gloria E. Walker and dismissing Respondent, Gloria E. Walker as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. That the Petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education, entered a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of incompetency and incapacity. It is further Recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 294140, issued by the Department of Education, State of Florida, for a period of three years based on incompetence and incapacity. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1987.
