Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Marion L. Hurst, a black male, has been employed with the Martin County school system since 1969. He presently holds an M.S. degree in Educational Administration and a Rank II certification in administration. Petitioner lacks two hours of graduate courses to add the subject of supervision to his certification. For the past nine years, in addition to teaching social studies classes, petitioner has held the position of team leader at Stuart Middle School, being responsible for the seventh grade reading, language arts and social studies programs. This involves approximately 350 students, six teachers and one or more teacher aides. The duties of a team leader include the scheduling and "levelling" of students, scheduling special assignments to teachers within the team, coordinating information and activities from the administration to the teachers, and weekly meetings with the school administrators. The petitioner adduced evidence that his teacher evaluations during his tenure at Stuart Middle School had been good to excellent overall. In contrast, the respondent presented evidence from several of his coworkers that petitioner occasionally has communication problems with the members of his team, receives complaints from the parents of his students regarding excess paperwork by the students as opposed to teaching by petitioner, and grammatical and spelling errors on petitioner's blackboard. While it is the team leader's responsibility to schedule students, petitioner has for the past several years utilized the reading teacher, Ms. Askeland, to perform that task. The petitioner has applied for many administrative positions in the school system. In April of 1977, petitioner, along with several other persons, applied for the position of assistant principal of Martin County High School -- the only high school in the county. The job description for that position required a Rank II certification with coverage in administration, supervision or curriculum. Petitioner did hold a Rank II certification in administration at the time of his application for the position. Another applicant, Wanda Yarboro, did not hold a Rank II certification with coverage in the required fields in April, 1977. Respondent Navitsky, Superintendent of the Martin County school system, recommended to the School Board that Ms. Yarboro receive the appointment as assistant principal of Martin County High School. Either because of a lack of funding due to the reorganization of the administration at Martin County High, or because Ms. Yarboro did not hold the certification required in the job description, the School Board originally failed to approve her appointment. During the summer months of 1977, a change was being effected in the School Board policy. The change allowed instructional administrators to acquire within twelve months of assignment a certificate covering the areas in which they are placed. Ms. Yarboro's appointment as assistant principal was approved by the School Board in August of 1977, and she received her certification in administration and supervision on September 28, 1977. Conflicting evidence was adduced at the hearing on the issue of whether Dr. Clifford Rollins, a person holding a higher ranked certificate and greater administrative experience than either Ms. Yarboro or petitioner, was also a candidate for the assistant principalship of Martin County High School in April of 1977. While his name appears on several lists of candidates for this position, the greater weight of the evidence leads to the finding that Dr. Rollins was not a candidate for that position. Superintendent Navitsky, though aware of Dr. Rollins desire to return to Martin County, did not consider him a candidate. Dr. Rollins testified that he was not a candidate for the position of assistant principal of the high school. While he did express an interest in returning to the community, he did not apply for this position because he was a former principal of that school and also because he was aware that other teachers and the department chairmen wanted Ms. Yarboro, who had been at the school for some time, to be promoted to the assistant principalship. Dr. Rollins had instructed the school personnel office to keep his application file active and this fact was offered in explanation of why his name appears on the list of candidates for the position. Ms. Yarboro had formerly occupied the position of department head of social studies at Martin County High School, which position became vacant upon her promotion to assistant principal. Although the school principal had recommended that Ann Crook be promoted to department head, Superintendent Navitsky called petitioner Hurst and offered him the position. This position involved responsibility for 33 teachers. Dr. David Anderson, a member of the Martin County School Board, received numerous telephone calls from other teachers at the high school in opposition to petitioner's appointment as department head of social studies. Dr. Anderson became concerned that petitioner was being "set up" in a hostile environment which would eventually lead to poor evaluations of petitioner and dismissal from his administrative position. Anderson believed that such an appointment may not be a good way for petitioner to begin his administrative career. Thereupon, Dr. Anderson arranged a meeting with Superintendent Navitsky, petitioner, himself and several other administrators. Dr. Anderson expressed his concerns at this meeting. Mr. Navitsky offered petitioner his support if he accepted the position. After discussing the matter, petitioner decided to withdraw his name as a candidate for the department head position. Superintendent Navitsky assured petitioner that declining the position would not adversely affect his candidacy for other positions. Petitioner believed that Navitsky was making him a promise that he would be appointed to the next administrative position. Gilbert Miller, the deputy superintendent for noninstructional services, was present at the meeting and recalled that Navitsky made no promise that petitioner would receive a specific appointment at a specific time in the future, but only an indefinite promise of a future administrative position. The next administrative position applied for by petitioner occurred in July of 1978. The former principal of Indiantown Middle School, located some twenty miles west of Stuart, resigned on short notice. Seven or eight persons applied for the position. Superintendent Navitsky interviewed all the candidates, including petitioner and Dr. Clifford Rollins. As noted above, Dr. Rollins had previously been the principal at Martin County High School. He had also been a principal at another Indiantown school and had most recently been a director of teacher education and the acting chairman of the department of education at a college in West Virginia. Dr. Rollins was recommended to the School Board by Superintendent Navitsky to fill the Indiantown Middle School principalship because of his past administrative experience and his previous service with and knowledge of the school district and the Indiantown area. The School Board approved the recommendation of Dr. Rollins. All witnesses, including petitioner Hurst, agreed that Dr. Rollins had better credentials than petitioner for this position. In August of 1978, the administrative position of curriculum coordinator at Murray Middle School became available. Seven or eight persons applied for the position, including the petitioner. The duties of a curriculum coordinator at a middle school include working with teachers to help develop curriculum and choose teaching material, evaluating testing and teaching techniques, assisting and scheduling students, evaluating teachers and a general knowledge of curriculum content at all levels. The principal at Murray Middle School, Edward Sheridan, personally interviewed all candidates for the position and developed a factoring or rating sheet for each candidate. He also discussed the candidates with his assistant principal, Quilley McHardy. The candidate receiving the highest rating was Joan Gallagher and Mr. Sheridan therefore recommended her for the position. Assistant Principal McHardy, a black, concurred in the recommendation. Superintendent Navitsky recommended her to the School Board because of Mr. Sheridan's recommendation and Ms. Gallagher was appointed as the curriculum coordinator at Murray Middle School. Joan Gallagher has been in the field of education for seventeen years. Until 1974, she taught at the elementary school level. Since 1974, she had been a sixth grade teacher at Murray Middle School and was the sixth grade team leader for a few months immediately prior to her appointment as curriculum coordinator. Two witnesses who were employed at Stuart Middle School had worked with both Ms. Gallagher and petitioner Hurst. The curriculum coordinator at Stuart testified that Ms. Gallagher was superior to petitioner Hurst in scheduling techniques. Ms. Askeland, the seventh grade reading and language arts teacher at Stuart who helped petitioner with scheduling at Stuart, testified that Ms. Gallagher had a better knowledge and understanding of curriculum concepts than petitioner. In the summer or fall of 1978, several members of the Young Men's Progressive Association, a civic organization of black businessmen and professionals, met with Superintendent Navitsky regarding the lack of black teachers in high school academics and in administration. According to two witnesses who attended the meeting, Mr. Navitsky acknowledged this problem, was sympathetic to their concerns, and agreed to do what he could to remedy this situation. While these witnesses felt there had been systematic discrimination in the school system, it was acknowledged that progress had been made in the promotion and recruitment of black teachers in Martin County due to the positive efforts of Superintendent Navitsky. Joint Exhibits 1A through 1D illustrate that during the period between 1974 and 1979, black persons received the appointment to an administrative position in those instances where they were candidates sixty percent of the time. In those instances where the only candidate was black, he or she received the appointment. Also, the percentage of black administrators to the total population of administrators in the Martin County school system increased from 13.6 percent in the 1974-75 school year to 19.2 percent in the 1979-80 school year. As of the date of the hearing in this cause, one-half of the ten available administrative positions in the 1979-80 school year were filled or offered to black candidates. In two of the instances where whites were appointed, there were no black candidates for the position.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that the respondents did not engage in unlawful employment practices in appointing Dr. Rollins to the position of principal of Indiantown Middle School or in appointing Ms. Gallagher to the position of curriculum coordinator of Murray Middle School; dismissing petitioner's petition for relief in this cause; and denying petitioner's motion for attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Gamba, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1016 1451 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 33494 Douglas K. Sands, Esquire 300 Colorado Avenue Post Office Box 287 Stuart, Florida 33494 Marva A. Davis, Assistant General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center, Cricle E Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman A. Jackson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center, Circle E Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue By petition for the revocation of teacher's certificate dated August 5, 1980, the Professional practices Council alleged that respondent "violated Section 6B5.03(1)(a), Rules of the State Board of Education [RSBE], in that he failed to keep records"; "violated Section 6B5.03(2)(a) [RSBE], in that he failed to utilize available instructional materials and equipment necessary to accomplish the designated task"; "violated Section 6B5.05(1)(a) [RSBE], in that he failed to provide frequent and prompt feedback covering the success of learning and good achievement efforts"; "plead[ed] guilty to driving while intoxicated" on or about March 29, 1979; "plead[ed] no contest to driving while intoxicated" on or about August 19, 1974; "was found guilty of driving while intoxicated" on or about April 22, 1967; "committed personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, . . . committed acts which are not a proper example for students, and . . . failed[ed] to meet the minimum standard of competent professional performance"; "all in violation of Florida Statutes Section 231.28, Section 231.09 and Section 6B5."
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent holds Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 039140, Graduate, Rant III, in the areas of physical education and social studies, due to expire on June 30, 1982. In the fall of 1967, after obtaining the B.S. degree from Florida Memorial College in St. Augustine, respondent, who was 57 years old at the time of the hearing, began working for the Duval County School Board. He first taught American history at Standard Vocational High School. After two years at Standard Vocational, he began at Fort Caroline Junior High School in 1969, where he taught ninth grade civics for two months, then physical education, after which he left off teaching and worked as an administrative assistant, with responsibilities for discipline and supervision of students in the cafeteria and bus loading area. Respondent then worked at Darnell Cookman as an administrative assistant until that school closed, when he returned to Fort Caroline Junior High School, as an administrative assistant. In the fall of 1974, Mr. Richardson began as an administrative assistant at Andrew Jackson, a position he held through the end of the 1976-1977 school year. In the fall of 1977, he began teaching geography and American history at Landon Junior High School. The next school year Mr. Richardson received an unsatisfactory evaluation from his principal, the first such evaluation in his career. In accordance with school board policy in such circumstances, his request for a transfer was honored and he began teaching in the fall of 1979 at Oceanway Seventh Grade Center (hereinafter "Oceanway"). On June 8, 1974, a Saturday, respondent was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. On his plea of nolo contendere, he was found guilty as charged on August 23, 1974. Respondent was again arrested on March 10, 1979, also a Saturday, and charged with driving while intoxicated. He was adjudicated guilty on his plea of guilty on March 20, 1979. Judith Poppell began as principal at Oceanway in the fall of 1979. Before she met respondent, she received a letter informing her that his work the preceding school year had been evaluated as unsatisfactory and asking her to evaluate respondent no later than October 31, 1979. At all pertinent times, only the Oceanway principal, the dean of boys, and the dean of girls had authority to administer corporal punishment. Any teacher, however, was authorized to use reasonable force to break up a fight or in self-defense. On the morning of September 26, 1979, Mr. Richardson had responsibility for supervising students in the area where they were disembarking from buses. He directed the students to stand clear of the bus ramp and placed his hand on a 15-year-old boy who hung back. The student called respondent a "motherfucker" and threw his books at Mr. Richardson, breaking his glasses. Respondent then pushed the student to the ground. Ms. Poppell asked respondent and the other teachers at Oceanway to furnish her copies of lesson plans weekly. Respondent furnished Ms. Poppell copies of lesson plans, but some were late or incomplete or, in Ms. Poppell's opinion, unrelated "to the minimum skill objectives." (T. 121) It appeared to her "that what in fact [respondent] was doing was going sequentially in the textbook" (T. 125) rather than teaching what would be tested on the minimum level skills test, a standardized achievement test administered county wide. On October 3, 1979, Ms. Poppell observed respondent teaching his Man and Society class at which time "the students were involved in a discussion of values and beliefs and needs, which is part of the course material." (T. 127) During this class, respondent lectured and, in Ms. Poppell's opinion, "did make some very good points" although eventually the students "began to get wiggly." (T. 127) On October 17, 1979, Ms. Poppell was in or near the gymnasium "getting together a candle order to be filled" (T. 128) when she heard respondent lecturing on softball to a physical education class which included "some children . . . who were disciplinary problems." (T. 129) While Ms. Poppell was listening, respondent shouted to a student, "Shut up. I'm not talking to you." (T. 129) During the 1979-1980 school year, Wade Randall Godfrey, a seventh grade student in Mr. Richardson's physical education class, complained to Joseph H. Fowler that Mr. Richardson had hit him with an aluminum baseball bat. After looking into this allegation, Mr. Fowler "could not find any evidence that [Godfrey] was actually struck by a baseball bat." )T. 43) Neither did the evidence adduced at hearing establish that respondent struck the student Godfrey with a baseball bat. On October 31, 1979, Ms. Poppell evaluated respondent's work as unsatisfactory based on her observations and those of Dr. Beyerle and Mr. Kitchens, which she related to respondent. At that time she suggested that respondent join ten other Oceanway teachers for an after school seminar (1.5 hours for each of six successive days) "designed to help teachers deal with disruptive students." (T. 130) Respondent did not avail himself of this opportunity because he coached soccer after school Respondent did attend two days of observation of physical education programs, at the behest of school administrators. Ms. Poppell asked the head of the social studies department at Oceanway, Mrs. Wiggins, to assist respondent in the preparation of lesson plans. At Mrs. Poppell's instance, Mrs. Wiggins spoke to respondent in November of 1979 about the failure of respondent's lesson plans to "follow the minimum level skills booklet." (T. 63) She began preparing respondent's lesson plans for him and continued preparing them for four or five weeks. In mid December, Mrs. Wiggins complained to the principal that a classroom she used the period after respondent had taught a class in it was littered with paper. Mrs. Poppell wrote respondent a note about the incident which Mrs. Wiggins took from respondent's mail box. Mrs. Wiggins meant to intercept the note to avoid hard feelings on respondent's part, but did not realize that respondent had already read and replaced it. After this episode, respondent prepared his own lesson plans, unassisted. While Mr. Richardson taught at Oceanway, Richard Edward Chandler was a student in his first semester Man and Society class. Mr. Richardson gave this class several tests. In one instance, he passed out only three to five copies of a test to the entire class. On that occasion, he instructed the recipients to pass the test copies on to other students after copying the test questions. As a result, the student Chandler did not have enough time to finish the test. According to respondent, he meant for the students to work in groups on the test, a technique he has concededly never used before or since. At the end of the first grading period in the fall of 1979, respondent was one of a number of teachers to whom John A. Beyerle sent messages because all of their students' grades had not been reported on time. Mr. Richardson was late with grades for eleven students, at the end of the first grading period. At the end of the second grading period, he was late with grades for seventeen students. James Kitchens, a physical education supervisor for the Duval County School Board, observed respondent teaching on two occasions. The first time was incidentally in October of 1979 when he was evaluating the physical education program at Oceanway as a whole. On one visit or another, Mr. Kitchens observed some students "running loose," (T. 173) and probably on the second visit, remarked the inefficient use of tumbling mats: single lines of students crossed mats longitudinally instead of double lines crossing the widths of the mats. Mr. Kitchens agreed that respondent had "some basic competence and skills in physical education management" (T. 180) but detected "some rustiness." (T. 180) On December 5, 10, and 11, 1979, Maurice Shuman, Duval County School Board's supervisor for social studies, observed respondents teaching his social studies classes. Mr. Shuman testified, "If I were going to evaluate Mr. Richardson certainly I would need, you know, a greater number of visits" (T. 197) and offered various suggestions and comments he felt would be helpful to respondent in his teaching. Dr. Beyerle observed respondent teaching two classes. On the first occasion, respondent spent the hour reviewing and, although Dr. Beyerle perceived certain "weaknesses," he really c[ould]n't say it was a bad lesson." (T 190) On the second occasion, respondent taught "a pretty good lesson." (T. 90) On at least one occasion, respondent failed to call the roll in a social studies class. At various times, respondent lectured, engaged students in "well paced" questions, used a globe, cassettes, and ditto sheets. Under the Duval County School Board's policies, no student could pass either the seventh grade geography or Man and Society courses, if he failed a standardized test administered at the end of the course, regardless of his performance in class or on other tests. In violation of this policy, respondent gave passing grades to two students, Carmella Scott and Anthony Watts, who had failed the minimum level skills test (MLST). Of approximately 36 students in respondent's first semester Man and Society class, eight failed the MLST, including students who had received "B"s for the 9- and 18-week grading periods and who had done well on a final exam respondent prepared.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner suspend respondent's teacher's certificate for one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether the Lee County School Board's termination of Respondent's employment as superintendent was "for cause," as defined by the employment contract between Respondent and the School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties School Board/District The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. The School Board consists of five elected members who are public officials, rather than employees of the District. The School Board members are elected for four-year terms. The terms of the School Board members are staggered such that three of the seats on the School Board were up for election in November 2002, while the remaining two seats will be up for election in November 2004. The three incumbent School Board members whose seats were up for election in November 2002 did not run for re- election. As a result, three new School Board members were elected in November 2002. The present School Board was constituted in an organizational session held on November 19, 2002. The members of the School Board are Dr. Jane Kuckel, Jeannie Dozier, Robert Chilmonik, Steven Teuber, and Dr. Elinor Scricca. The District educates approximately 63,000 students in approximately 70 schools. The District has more than 8,300 employees, and its annual budget is more than $800 million. The District is a "school choice" district, meaning that parents have the opportunity to select the school in the District that their children attend. School choice complicates the formulation of a student transportation system because the bus routes cannot be finalized until the selection process is complete, and it is possible (and not uncommon) that students from one end of the county will choose to attend schools in the other end of the county, and bus routes must be developed to accommodate those students. All of the District's employees, except the School Board attorney, report through the "chain of command" to the superintendent. The School Board attorney reports directly to the School Board, as does the superintendent. The grades assigned by the Department of Education to the District's schools showed marginal improvement during Respondent's tenure as superintendent; approximately 80 percent of the District's schools received a grade of "A" or "B" for the 2002-03 school year. However, those facts cannot be directly correlated to Respondent's job performance or attributed to his leadership of the District. Respondent Respondent served as the superintendent of the District's schools for approximately 19 months between September 4, 2001, and March 13, 2003. Immediately prior to becoming the superintendent of the District's schools, Respondent spent six years as the superintendent of the Hernando County School District. In that position, Respondent became familiar with the Florida School Code and the duties and responsibilities that it imposes on the superintendent of schools. Prior to his tenure as superintendent in Hernando County, Respondent worked for approximately 25 years as a public school teacher, principal, and administrator outside of the State of Florida. That work included six years as the superintendent of a small school district in Delton, Michigan, and two years as a deputy superintendent of the Jackson, Mississippi, school district. None of Respondent's prior administrative experience, including his tenure as superintendent of the Hernando County schools, was in a school district as large as the District. Hernando County, for example, had only 17,000 students and 19 schools. Respondent's Employment Contract Respondent's employment with the School Board was governed by a written contract dated July 31, 2001. The contract was for a three-year term beginning on September 4, 2001, and ending on September 4, 2004. Section 1 of the contract obligated Respondent to "faithfully perform his duties and obligations [as superintendent] for the School District including, but not limited to, those duties required by state and federal law." Section 3 of the contract required the School Board to evaluate Respondent's performance on an annual basis. Section 11.B. of the contract provides in pertinent part that: Subject to the provisions of this Article, by a majority vote of its members, the School Board shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and remove [Respondent] from office for any of the following reasons: * * * vi. The commission by [Respondent] of any offense for which dismissal against instructional personnel may be pursued as set forth in Florida State [sic] 231.36 and more particularly defined in Florida Administrative Code Section [sic] 6B-4.009. If Respondent's employment was terminated for one of the reasons listed in Section 11.B. of the contract, then the termination was "for cause," and the School Board had no further liability towards Respondent. If, however, Respondent's employment was terminated "without cause," then under Section 11.A. of the contract, the School Board was required to pay Respondent "a severance payment equal to the salary payments and benefits which [Respondent] would have been receiving over the remaining term of this agreement . . . at [Respondent's] current rate of pay in effect on the day prior to the date of termination" as liquidated damages. The termination language was proposed by Respondent and his attorney in their negotiations with the School Board attorney. Relationship of the School Board and the Superintendent, Generally The School Board is responsible for the governance of the District and it sets the policy for the District. The School Board acts based upon the formal recommendations given to it by the superintendent in accordance with Florida law. The School Board uses three types of meetings in its decision making process: briefing meetings, workshops, and action meetings. Briefing meetings are informational in nature and typically involve District staff presenting information to the School Board on pending projects or issues. Workshops involve more of an interchange between staff and the School Board on pending matters and are used by the School Board to provide staff guidance on matters upon which there is consensus. Those matters would then be brought before the School Board at a subsequent action meeting for formal consideration. Action meetings are either regular or special meetings at which the superintendent makes formal recommendations upon which the School Board votes. The superintendent is the "chief executive officer" of the school district and is responsible for the day-to-day operation and administration of the school district. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that, as superintendent, he was ultimately responsible for all operations in the District, including the instructional program, the transportation of the students, and personnel. Respondent also acknowledged that he is ultimately responsible to the School Board for the acts and omissions of the District's employees and ensuring that they comply with District policy. Respondent communicated with the School Board members in various ways, including formal presentations at School Board meetings and informal meetings with individual School Board members. Respondent also provided the School Board members with a weekly "Friday memorandum," which addressed a broad range of issues including responses to information requests made by the School Board, updates on matters that the School Board had previously approved, summaries of matters that would be on future School Board agendas, and briefs on District programs or accomplishments that might be of interest to School Board members. Respondent had a group of assistant superintendents reporting directly to him. One of those assistant superintendents was Donald Campbell, who was the assistant superintendent for operational services and had oversight of the transportation department. Prior to that position, Mr. Campbell had no responsibility over student transportation, but he did have a long work history with the District, including tenures as a teacher, principal, and administrator. Mr. Campbell did not have a good reputation for honesty in the District, and that fact was made known to Respondent by multiple sources early in his tenure as superintendent. Additional concerns about the accuracy and veracity of Mr. Campbell's information were made known to Respondent during the course of the discussions involving the problems with the student transportation system described below. Multiple department directors reported to each of the assistant superintendents. One of the department directors who reported to Mr. Campbell was Louis Karnbach. Mr. Karnbach was the director of the District's transportation department, and he had approximately 21 years of experience with student transportation issues in Florida. In fact, he was acknowledged at the hearing to be the most knowledgeable person in the District on student transportation issues. Background Regarding the Procedural Steps Leading to the Termination of Respondent's Employment At a workshop held on January 9, 2003, the School Board reached consensus to hire outside counsel to determine whether there were grounds to terminate Respondent's employment as superintendent. The following week, at the School Board attorney's direction, four of the five School Board members provided the outside counsel with a list of their "concerns" regarding Respondent's job performance. Thereafter, on January 14, 2003, the School Board formally voted to hire outside counsel to investigate whether those concerns provided a basis to terminate Respondent's employment. At a special meeting held on March 12, 2003, outside counsel presented a report to the School Board regarding his investigation of the concerns identified by the School Board members. The School Board unanimously voted to direct outside counsel to prepare a "charge sheet to consider the termination of [Respondent's] contract." At a special meeting held the following day, March 13, 2003, outside counsel presented a "proposed charge sheet" to the School Board. The School Board voted to adopt the charge sheet and to immediately terminate Respondent's employment as superintendent based upon those charges. The vote was four to one, with the dissenting vote being cast by Dr. Kuckel. She believed that Respondent should have been given a remedial plan to correct the deficiencies identified in his October 2002 performance evaluation (discussed below) and that the effective date of the termination should be delayed by a week in order to give Respondent "an opportunity to bring things to closure and [to give] the Board [an opportunity] to develop a direction." Respondent's employment contract did not require the School Board to give him a remedial plan as suggested by Dr. Kuckel. Nor did the employment contract require the School Board to impose "progressive discipline" on Respondent prior to terminating his employment. The Statement of Reasons for Proposed Discharge (hereafter "the Charges") was served on Respondent on March 13, 2003. That document sets forth the factual and legal bases for the School Board's decision to terminate Respondent's employment, and it is the preliminary agency action which gave rise to this formal administrative proceeding. Substantive Allegations upon which the Termination of Respondent's Employment was Based The Charges generally allege that Respondent was incompetent in the performance of his duties; that he willfully neglected his duties; that he is guilty of misconduct in office; that he violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida; and that he failed to faithfully perform his duties and obligations as superintendent. The Charges identified 11 specific acts, events, omissions, and/or circumstances which served as the basis for those general allegations. Each will be discussed in turn.2 Changes to the Student Transportation System and School Start Times In late 2001, Respondent directed each of his assistant superintendents and department directors to come up with ideas for reducing their operating budgets for the 2002-03 school year. That action was in response to a District-wide budget shortfall created by legislative funding cuts in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Around that same time, Mr. Karnbach was developing the school bus routes for the 2002-03 school year. He initially proposed minor adjustments to the existing routes and school start times, but when no consensus could be reached among the school principals regarding those changes, he suggested to Mr. Campbell that a two-tier student transportation system be reviewed as a potential cost-saving measure. The District had historically used a three-tier system for transporting students. Under that system, schools were assigned to one of three tiers and each tier had a different start time. Buses served one tier of schools at a time. A two- tier system operates in the same way, except that instead of three tiers of schools, there were only two tiers. A critical component of any student transportation system is "turnaround time," which is the amount of time between the start time for one tier of schools and the start time of the next tier of schools. If there is not enough turnaround time provided, the bus will not have enough time to complete its route and pick up the students for the second (or third) tier schools, and as a result, those students will be dropped off late at their schools. The preferred turnaround time is 90 minutes and, according to Mr. Karnbach, that time-period had been used as the benchmark during his entire 11-year tenure with the District. Even with a 90-minute turnaround time, it is not uncommon for buses to drop students off late, i.e., after the School's designated start time. Late buses are more common on the later tiers than on the first tier. Another important component of any school transportation system is having a sufficient number of full-time and substitute bus drivers. This factor is more important in a two-tier system than in a three-tier system, because instead of each bus and driver serving three schools, each bus and driver will only serve two schools. As a result, more buses and drivers are necessary to serve all of the schools under a two-tier system. Mr. Karnbach estimated that only a small number of additional bus drivers would need to be hired in order to implement the original two-tier plan that he developed. As discussed below, modifications to the original proposal and other factors resulted in the District's needing to hire considerably more bus drivers than originally projected by Mr. Karnbach in order to implement the two-tier plan ultimately approved by the School Board. Despite the need for more bus drivers, the two-tier plan would (in theory) result in cost savings because of a reduction in the number of overtime hours that bus drivers were working under the three-tier plan. Respondent presented Mr. Karnbach's plan to change the student transportation system from a three-tier system to a two-tier system to the School Board at its February 7, 2002, workshop. That plan was viable because it included the necessary 90-minute turnaround time. The only justification offered for the change was a projected cost savings of approximately $2.4 million. The other options presented to the School Board at the workshop-- continuing with the existing three-tier system, either without modification or with minor adjustments--involved a $200,000 cost increase or no cost savings. In light of the budget shortfall facing the District at the time, the School Board favorably viewed the proposed change to a two-tier system because of its projected cost savings. At the February 7, 2002, workshop, the Board expressed concerns regarding the viability of the two-tier system, but nevertheless directed staff to further develop the proposal. Specific concerns were raised regarding the prospects of combination bussing and potential adverse impacts on hiring and retaining bus drivers, since they would be driving less and earning less money under a two-tier system. It was also suggested that staff consider moving elementary schools to the first tier, rather than being on a later tier as was the case at the time. In response to the School Board's concerns regarding the viability of the two-tier system, Mr. Campbell contacted staff at the St. Lucie County School District regarding that district's experience with a two-tier transportation system. St. Lucie County is a much smaller school district than Lee County, but like Lee County, it is a "school choice" district. In response to the School Board's comments regarding earlier elementary school start times, Mr. Campbell compiled articles from the Internet discussing educational benefits from early start times for elementary students. He also conducted a non-scientific survey over the Internet which received only 400 responses. Those responses were evenly split on the proposal to start elementary schools earlier and high schools and middle schools later. Respondent brought the two-tier plan back before the School Board at its March 7, 2002, briefing meeting. Only two options were presented to the School Board at that meeting, both of which involved changing to a two-tier system. The supporting documentation provided to the School Board at that meeting included the information compiled by Mr. Campbell. The first option, Option A, was a two-tier system with high schools and middle schools on the first tier and elementary schools on the second tier. The second option, Option B, "flipped" the tiers putting elementary schools on the first tier and high schools and middle schools on the second tier. Under Option B, the high schools would start at either 9:00 or 9:15 a.m. The projected cost savings for each option were significantly less than the $2.4 million presented to the School Board in February. The estimated cost savings for Option A was $1.3 million, and the estimated cost savings for Option B was $1.5 million. Even though the School Board criticized Respondent's failure to obtain input from stakeholders, such as teachers, bus drivers, parents, and school administrators before presenting the plan, the School Board reached a consensus to move forward with Option B. The plan was still viable at that time because it included the necessary 90-minute turnaround time. The issue was placed on the agenda of the School Board's March 19, 2002, action meeting for formal approval. On March 18, 2002, the day before the plan was to be voted on by the School Board, Respondent met for the first time with the principals of all of the District's schools. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Karnbach attended the meeting with Respondent. Prior to that meeting, Respondent and his staff had not solicited any input on the proposed two-tier plan from the principals or other stakeholders, except for Mr. Campbell's Internet survey that received only 400 responses. The elementary school principals overwhelmingly favored the proposed plan (Option B) because their schools would be moved from the later tiers to the first tier. The middle school principals also favored the plan for the same reason, but they were more split than the elementary school principals. The high school principals overwhelmingly opposed the proposed plan. Their opposition was based primarily on the fact that the later starting times would adversely affect their students' after-school jobs, athletics, and other extracurricular programs. Shortly before the end of the meeting, Respondent guaranteed the high school principals that their schools would start no later than 8:20 a.m. in an effort to ameliorate their concerns. This guarantee effectively doomed the proposed two-tier plan because it reduced the turnaround time below the necessary 90 minutes. Mr. Karnbach told Respondent at the meeting that the plan would not work with the reduced turnaround time, but Respondent ignored Mr. Karnbach's warning. He simply told Mr. Karnbach to "hire more drivers," which was not a viable option because the District was already facing a bus driver shortage, and that shortage was going to be further exacerbated by the reductions in driver pay that resulted from the two-tier plan. Indeed, Mr. Karnbach told Respondent at the time that he "can't get the people to do that." Despite Mr. Karnbach's warning, Respondent recommended that the School Board approve the two-tier plan (Option B), as modified to include the 8:20 a.m. start time for the high schools. The School Board approved that recommendation at its March 19, 2002, action meeting. The School Board was not expressly told that the plan that it was approving did not have the necessary 90-minute turnaround time, nor was it expressly told about the need that the plan created for hiring more bus drivers than originally anticipated. Mr. Karnbach did tell the School Board that "I don't know how this is going to work, its never been tried before in this district," and for that comment, he received a verbal reprimand from Mr. Campbell. The plan approved by the School Board generated considerable public controversy even before the school year began in August 2002. For example, 48 citizens (including current School Board members Scricca and Chilmonik) spoke in opposition to changes to the school start times in the two-tier plan at the School Board's July 16, 2002, meeting, and current School Board member Teuber urged the School Board to "revert to last year's school [start] times" at the August 28, 2002, meeting. The School Board considered a return to the three-tier system at its July 18, 2002, meeting. It also considered a "flip flop" of the tiers to return the high schools to the earlier tier at that meeting. After considerable debate, those changes were not made. However, a slight modification was made to the elementary school start times. In August 2002 after the "bidding" process for the bus routes required under the bus drivers' collective bargaining agreement had been completed, it was apparent that the District would not have enough drivers to make the two-tier plan work. Mr. Karnbach informed Respondent of this fatal problem, but this information was not conveyed to the School Board. The problems with the plan became apparent immediately after the school year began. The District had hundreds of late buses each day during the first several weeks of school. The late buses were primarily at the high schools since they were on the second tier, but even first-tier schools had late buses. In an effort to address the late bus problems, the School Board voted at its August 28, 2002, meeting to authorize Respondent to adjust the school start times "plus or minus 15 minutes" without School Board approval. Before the motion was approved, an amendment was adopted to specifically exclude high schools from the authorization given to Respondent. This restriction somewhat limited Respondent's ability to solve the late bus problem since most of the late buses were on the second-tier, which is the tier that most of the high schools were on. The restriction was lifted by a separate vote of the School Board at its October 15, 2002, meeting. Respondent knew that his authorization from the School Board was limited to changes of "plus or minus 15 minutes," and he further knew that changes in excess of 15 minutes required School Board approval. Despite that knowledge (and as discussed more fully below), Respondent changed the start time of the North Fort Myers Academy for the Arts by 20 minutes in December 2002. Respondent made some minor adjustments to school start times, but the late buses continued into September 2002. During that time Respondent continued to tell the School Board that the problem would be solved soon because the District had hired additional drivers. That information was not accurate and the late buses continued. In an effort to find a solution to the continuing late buses, Respondent convened a task force of interested parties in late September 2002. As more fully discussed below, the purpose of the task force was to "tell [Respondent] what to do" to solve the transportation problem, and several of the task force's recommendations were presented to and approved by the School Board at its September 30, 2002, meeting. At that September 30, 2002, meeting Respondent presented the School Board with several options for the second semester of the 2002-03 school year, including returning to a three-tier system and "flip flopping" the start times of the two-tier system to return high schools to the first tier. Respondent recommended that the School Board "stay the course," which was the action ultimately taken by the School Board after considerable debate. Efforts were made by Respondent's administration to keep the School Board members apprised of the status of the transportation problem and the efforts being taken by the transportation department to solve the problem. For example, Mr. Campbell provided the School Board members daily updates from August 21, 2002, through November 4, 2002, regarding the number of late buses at each school and the status of bus driver recruitment and training efforts. At the November 19, 2002, organizational meeting of the "new" School Board, specific criteria were established with respect to the student transportation system for the second semester of 2002-03. Staff was directed to bring back a recommendation consistent with those criteria for the School Board's consideration, which Respondent did at the School Board's November 25, 2002, meeting. At that meeting, the School Board approved the expenditure of $1.14 million to hire over 89 permanent bus drivers and 25 substitutes. That expenditure was intended to alleviate the late bus problem and to ensure that no elementary student was picked up prior to 6:30 a.m., which were two of the criteria established by the School Board. The School Board members who testified at the hearing acknowledged that the support documentation and cost information provided with Respondent's recommendation was satisfactory or, at least, better than it had been in the past. The late bus problem began to improve towards the end of the first semester of the 2002-03 school year. However, there continued to be late buses at Dunbar and other schools in November and December. Throughout the first semester of the 2002-03 school year, the School Board was critical of the information that it was receiving from Respondent and his administration regarding the problems with the transportation system and the potential solutions to those problems. The criticisms related to the quantity, quality, completeness, and accuracy of the information that Respondent and his staff were providing to the School Board. For example, Mr. Campbell told the School Board at its January 14, 2003, meeting that there were no late buses at Dunbar, even though School Board member Chilmonik had gone to Dunbar and personally observed buses arriving late. Respondent never disciplined Mr. Campbell for providing false information to the School Board regarding the late buses at Dunbar. Nor did Respondent discipline Mr. Campbell through the School Board's formal disciplinary process for providing misinformation or incomplete information in connection with the formulation of the two-tier plan. Respondent did send Mr. Campbell a memorandum dated September 20, 2002, which was critical of Mr. Campbell's job performance in several respects, including his failure to inform Respondent of the historical shortage of bus drivers in the District and his tendency to take action without a complete analysis of the situation. That letter was not included in Mr. Campbell's personnel file, and it is of limited significance because it did not result in any material change to the level of scrutiny that Respondent gave Mr. Campbell's recommendations or the information that he passed on to the School Board from Mr. Campbell. The controversy surrounding the change in the school start times and the problems with late buses consumed a significant amount of the School Board's time during the first semester of the 2002-03 school year. The issue was discussed at nearly every School Board meeting during that period, and School Board members received numerous comments from parents regarding the transportation problems, both at the School Board meetings and in their offices. As a result of the continuing problems with the student transportation system, the "old" (i.e., pre-November 2002) School Board members lost confidence in Respondent's ability to provide leadership to the District, and fair or not, the "new" (i.e., post-November 2002) School Board members never had confidence in Respondent's judgment and leadership abilities. The School Board's concerns regarding Respondent's leadership abilities and the completeness and accuracy of his communications with School Board were expressed in a variety of forums--both publicly at School Board workshops and meetings and, privately, by individual School Board members--during the course of Respondent's tenure with the District. Of particular significance is Respondent's annual performance evaluation by the School Board in October 2002 when he received an overall score of 1.74 out of four. On the evaluations, each of the School Board members expressed dissatisfaction with the level of communication between Respondent and the School Board. Additionally, the evaluations were critical of Respondent with respect to his "identification of causes of operational problems [and] timely solutions" and not giving stakeholders information "in a timely manner when requested." Dunbar High School Issues Dunbar High School (Dunbar) is of special interest to the School Board because of its location in a predominately minority area of Lee County and its history as the minority school during segregation. The Dunbar community is particularly sensitive with respect to the treatment received by Dunbar in comparison to the treatment received by Fort Myers High School, which was the predominately white school in the District during segregation. Dunbar was re-opened as a "magnet school" in August 2002 as part of a 1999 settlement agreement approved by the Federal District Court. That settlement agreement resolved a 30-year-old desegregation lawsuit against the School Board and resulted in a declaration that the District was "unitary." The settlement agreement required the School Board to establish the Unitary School System Advisory Committee (USSAC) to monitor the District's compliance with the settlement agreement. USSAC is comprised of various members of the community, including individuals involved as plaintiffs in the desegregation lawsuit. Because of Dunbar's history and its role in the settlement agreement, Dunbar and its problems receive special attention from the School Board. For the same reasons, it is important for the School Board to maintain a good relationship with USSAC. Indeed, School Board policy expressly requires the superintendent to "respond as promptly as practicable to all [USSAC] requests for information." Respondent was aware of Dunbar's special status in the District and understood the sensitivity of the issues relating to Dunbar. He also understood the importance of ensuring that Dunbar was not only treated equally, but also that the Dunbar community believed that the school was being treated equally. The allegations against Respondent involving Dunbar must be evaluated against this background. The first allegation against Respondent involving Dunbar is that he failed to timely resolve problems with the school's security alarm system. Those problems were caused, at least in part, by the renovation of Dunbar which began in the summer of 2000. The renovation involved the construction of several new buildings and the refurbishment of most of the existing buildings at the school. The renovation contract, which was executed prior to Respondent's tenure as superintendent, provided for the installation of a new alarm system in the new buildings and the integration of that system with the existing alarm system at the school. For a variety of reasons, this integrated alarm system did not work. Respondent's staff became aware of the problems with the alarm system as early as August 2002. Nevertheless, no meaningful action was taken until December 2002 to repair the system. By that time, there had been three break-ins at Dunbar involving damages and the theft of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. On December 18, 2002, the day after the third break- in, Dunbar's principal sent an e-mail detailing his frustration with the security alarm system and other matters. Among other things, the e-mail stated that Dunbar needed 24-hour security immediately and that the "Bridges grant" money awarded to Dunbar "last spring" needed to be released so ten-foot fences could be constructed on the west and south side of the Dunbar campus. Respondent was copied on the e-mail, and it was the first notice of the security alarm problem that Respondent personally received. Respondent took immediate action in response to the e-mail. He directed that a 24-hour security guard be posted at Dunbar until the problems with the security alarm were resolved, and he got the grant money released so that the security fence could be installed around Dunbar. On December 19, 2003, Dunbar's leadership team sent a letter to Respondent (with copies to the School Board members) detailing their frustration with the security alarm problems and other issues. In response to that letter, Respondent met with the Dunbar leadership team shortly after the Christmas break. Although Respondent initially berated the leadership team for what he viewed as a violation of the "chain of command" by their sending a copy of the letter to the School Board members, the meeting also involved "give and take" between Respondent and the leadership team regarding their concerns. Around the time of the third break-in, Respondent's staff was attempting to get the contractor to accept responsibility for the problems with the alarm system. The contractor initially denied responsibility for making the integrated alarm system work, but it ultimately relented and began working in January 2003 to fix the alarm system. The alarm system was not fully functional until March 2003, at the earliest. Respondent never disciplined anyone on his staff for his or her failure to take timely appropriate action to fix the problems with the security alarm at Dunbar, even though it was apparent from the December 18, 2002, e-mail and the December 19, 2003, letter that Dunbar's principal and leadership team felt that Respondent's staff was not being responsive to their concerns. Nor did Respondent discipline anyone on his staff for their failure to keep him advised of the continuing problem with the security alarm system at Dunbar prior to it becoming a significant issue, both financially (because of the multiple break-ins) and politically (because of the perceived inequitable treatment expressed by the Dunbar leadership team). The second allegation against Respondent involving Dunbar is that he failed to respond to a December 14, 2002, letter sent to him by USSAC. The letter was directed to Respondent. Copies of the letter were sent to the School Board attorney and Ms. Boren, who was the School Board's liaison to USSAC at the time. The letter alleged that Dunbar and Dunbar Middle School were being treated inequitably with respect to the transportation of students, specifically as to the use of "shared" buses, rather than "dedicated" buses to serve those schools. A dedicated bus serves only one school, whereas a shared bus serves more than one school. Shared buses are used to serve schools that are located in close proximity to each other, as are Dunbar and Dunbar Middle School. This practice creates efficiencies since it increases the bus load factor (i.e., the number of students on each bus) and it concomitantly decreases the number of buses and bus drivers needed to serve each school. Despite the sound rationale for shared buses, USSAC was offended by their continued use at the Dunbar schools. Indeed, the USSAC letter stated in no uncertain terms that by not providing the Dunbar schools with dedicated buses, "the district has made a conscious choice to defy the Unitary Status order and reestablish the vestiges of a dual school system." The letter closed with a request that the School Board be advised of USSAC's demand for dedicated buses at the December 16, 2002, briefing meeting and requested "a response to this recommendation immediately." Despite the strong tone of the USSAC letter, Respondent did not advise the School Board of the letter, nor did he substantively respond to USSAC, as requested. In fact, his only response to the letter was a short phone call to the USSAC chairman acknowledging receipt of the letter. Respondent testified that he chose not to put his response in writing because he did not want to commit the School Board to providing "dedicated" buses for the Dunbar schools, because he understood that it would be difficult or impossible to do. In this regard, Respondent understood from Mr. Campbell that it would have taken 26 additional buses to provide dedicated buses to Dunbar and Dunbar Middle School. It turns out that Mr. Campbell was incorrect and that it would have required as few as four buses. In any event, Respondent's understanding at the time does not justify his failure to provide a substantive response to USSAC's concerns, even if the substance of the response would not have been what USSAC wanted to hear. Mr. Campbell subsequently attended a USSAC meeting to formally brief the committee on the bussing situation. However, it was not until a School Board member (Mr. Teuber) became actively involved in the Dunbar issues and met with Respondent that Respondent directed Mr. Campbell to attend the USSAC meeting. The cumulative effect of the ongoing security problems at Dunbar and the continuation of shared buses at the Dunbar schools was that the Dunbar community perceived that their concerns were being "totally disregarded" by the District's administration. This was creating a "volatile" situation, which Respondent did very little to address and, in fact, helped to foster by failing to substantively respond to the USSAC letter. Hiring of Charles R. Lyons On June 20, 2002, Respondent recommended that the School Board hire Charles R. Lyons to be the District's director of facilities. In that position Mr. Lyons would supervise a staff of seven employees and would be responsible for, among other things, overseeing the management of the performance contracts between the District and various vendors. At the time, Mr. Lyons was employed by Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). He was the top-ranked applicant, as determined by the District's "targeted-selection" interview process. As part of the interview process, assistant superintendent William Humbaugh contacted Mr. Lyons' supervisor at FGCU. Mr. Humbaugh was told that Mr. Lyons was under investigation for alleged violations of university policy regarding use of leave time and misuse of university property. Mr. Humbaugh was told or led to believe that the allegations against Mr. Lyons were unfounded or insignificant. As he did in every reference check, Mr. Humbaugh specifically asked whether there was any reason that the District should not hire Mr. Lyons and whether Mr. Lyons would be "an embarrassment" to the District. He was told "no" to each question. Based upon this reference check and Mr. Lyons' status as the top-ranked applicant in the targeted-selection process, Mr. Humbaugh recommended to Respondent that he recommend Mr. Lyons' hiring to the School Board. Respondent spoke with FGCU's president, Dr. William Merwin, on two occasions regarding Mr. Lyons. The first occasion was by telephone, and the second occasion was in person on the day that Respondent's recommendation to hire Mr. Lyons was on the School Board's agenda. At the time of the first conversation, Dr. Merwin did not know the full extent of the allegations against Mr. Lyons. He told Respondent that he thought the allegations involved "some very disgruntled employees" and that the university was "looking into" the matter. Respondent, like Mr. Humbaugh, was led to believe that the allegations against Mr. Lyons were relatively minor and/or unfounded. At the time of the second conversation, the university's investigation of Mr. Lyons had been completed. Dr. Merwin did not inform Respondent that the matter had been referred to the State Attorney's office, but he did indicate that the alleged improprieties involved Mr. Lyons' questionable relationships with several university vendors. Nevertheless, he told Respondent that the results of the university's investigation did not give the university a basis to terminate Mr. Lyons' employment. This conversation, as a whole, again left Respondent with the impression that the allegations against Mr. Lyons were relatively minor and/or unfounded. Respondent requested a copy of the investigative report from Dr. Merwin, but Dr. Merwin told him that he could not give him a copy since he considered the matter to still be open. It was not until July 11, 2002, that the School Board received a copy of the investigative report from FGCU. Respondent did not inform the School Board of his conversations with Dr. Merwin, nor did he inform the School Board of FGCU's investigation of Mr. Lyons. The Board approved Mr. Lyons' hiring as recommended by Respondent on June 20, 2002. Mr. Lyons was scheduled to begin work at the District on July 8, 2002, but for the reasons described below, he never did so. The day after Mr. Lyons' hiring was approved, the District received an anonymous fax which included a local newspaper article from May 2002 entitled, "Alleged theft at FGCU plant probed." The article did not mention Mr. Lyons by name, but a document included with the newspaper article stated, among other things, "[y]our new Director of Facilities (CR Lyons) is the person who has left the University for misappropriation of funds. . . You may NOT want to be involved in another scandal. PROTECT YOURSELF." Upon receipt of the fax, Ms. Dozier confronted Respondent regarding his recommendation to hire Mr. Lyons. She demanded that Respondent bring forward a recommendation to terminate Mr. Lyons' employment. Respondent initially refused to do so, but shortly before the School Board meeting on July 16, 2002, Respondent relented and brought forward a recommendation that Mr. Lyons be terminated. The School Board approved that recommendation, and Mr. Lyons never worked for the District. The State Attorney's office ultimately decided not to bring criminal charges against Mr. Lyons. That decision was not made until March 2003, well after the events surrounding Mr. Lyons' hiring and firing by the District. Confirming Purchase Orders Under District policy, all expenditures in excess of $25,000 must be approved by the School Board before a purchase order is issued for the goods or services. On occasion in the past, the School Board has approved "confirming purchase orders" for purchases that have been made in violation of this policy. Two "confirming purchase orders" were placed on the agenda for the February 18, 2003, School Board meeting. The items appeared on the "consent agenda" and were not expressly designated as "confirming purchase orders." In fact, it is nearly impossible to tell from the back-up material provided to the School Board for the agenda items that they involved "confirming purchase orders." The first purchase order was for approximately $352,000 and was for Internet services rendered by Sprint under a multi-year contract that was previously approved by the School Board. The second purchase order was for approximately $29,000 and was for cables installed by Fiber Solutions at several schools' cafeterias. There are extenuating circumstances that explain how the "confirming purchase orders" came to be necessary,3 but the fact remains that the agenda item presented to the School Board failed to explain those circumstance or otherwise indicate that approval of "confirming purchase orders" was being sought. Indeed, the placement of the purchase orders on the "consent agenda," which is typically reserved for non-controversial and routine matters, suggests an intent to conceal the true nature of these purchase orders from the School Board. There is no evidence that Respondent was personally aware of the circumstances underlying the "confirming purchase orders" prior to their placement on the February 18, 2003, agenda. Ms. Dozier brought the matter to Respondent's attention on the day of the School Board meeting after she received an unsolicited call from a District employee regarding the matter. She directed Respondent to remove the Sprint and Fiber Solution purchase orders from the "consent agenda," which he did. The matter was discussed at the School Board meeting on February 18, 2003, as part of the general agenda, but no action was taken at that time. The School Board members expressed significant concerns regarding the matter and directed Respondent to investigate the circumstances surrounding the placement of the Sprint and Fiber Options purchase orders on the "consent agenda." Despite the significant and well-founded concerns expressed by the School Board members, Respondent failed to hold anyone accountable for the misleading agenda item, even though it is clear that a member of Respondent's executive team, Dale Wilson, placed the items on the "consent agenda" with a misleading summary in order to conceal the fact that School Board approval had not been obtained prior to receipt of services, which exceeded $25,000. Neither Mr. Wilson nor Susan Zellers, another member of the executive team who was also actively involved in the effort to obtain School Board approval for the previously performed work, was disciplined for their actions. The only employees who were disciplined in connection with this matter were two lower-level District employees who had no direct role in the preparation of the misleading agenda items. Those employees received verbal reprimands based upon their acts and omissions which resulted in the need for the "confirming purchase orders." The matter was brought before the School Board again on March 4, 2003, as regular agenda items. The explanation provided with those agenda items made it clear that the School Board was being asked to approve "confirming purchase orders." The School Board approved the "confirming purchase orders" upon the advice of its attorney. Alleged Violation of the Sunshine Law In late September 2002, Respondent created a Transportation Task Force (Task Force), which consisted of employees of the District's transportation department (including Mr. Campbell and Mr. Karnbach), bus drivers, school principals, teachers, parents and other members of the public. As explained by Respondent in his September 20, 2002, weekly memorandum to the School Board members, the Task Force was formed to "discuss" a variety of transportation issues and to "bring forward recommendations to the superintendent." Respondent confirmed in his testimony at the hearing that the purpose of the Task Force was to "tell [him] what to do" with respect to the District's transportation problems and that he understood that the Task Force would be using a facilitated interest-based decision-making process to present him with "consensus" recommendations. The interest-based decision-making process involved the Task Force members first identifying as many possible solutions as they could and then discussing each option in an effort to reach a consensus. In the end, the Task Force reached consensus on ten of the 39 options that it discussed. The first meeting of the Task Force was held on September 23, 2002. No public notice of the meeting was given, and a reporter from the local newspaper was denied access to the meeting. Later that day, School Board attorney Keith Martin was contacted by the attorney for the local newspaper regarding the denial of access to the Task Force meeting. The newspaper's attorney did not threaten a lawsuit based upon the reporter's being denied access to the meeting, and no lawsuit was ever filed by the newspaper or anyone else against the School Board for violating the Sunshine Law in connection with the Task Force meetings. After receiving the call from the newspaper's attorney, Mr. Martin immediately contacted Respondent to ascertain whether the claims made by the newspaper's attorney were true and to discern whether the Task Force is subject to the Sunshine Law. After a brief discussion with Respondent regarding the purpose of the Task Force and its use of the interest-based decision-making process, Mr. Martin gave Respondent his legal opinion that the Task Force meetings were subject to the Sunshine Law and that public notice of the meetings must be given and minutes must be kept. Mr. Martin's legal opinion was based upon his understanding that the ultimate product of the Task Force would be a list of consensus recommendations and that the Task Force would not present any of its non-consensus options to Respondent. Mr. Martin never advised Respondent not to hold the Task Force meeting scheduled for the following day, even though Mr. Martin knew that the meeting had not been properly advertised. Respondent disagreed with Mr. Martin's legal opinion, but he nevertheless allowed the local newspaper and interested members of the public to attend the subsequent meetings of the Task Force. Despite public access being allowed, the meetings were still not in full compliance with the Sunshine Law because they were not properly advertised and minutes of the meetings were not kept. After its last meeting on September 25, 2002, the Task Force provided Respondent with a list of all of the options that it discussed, including those options on which no consensus was reached. The ten options on which the Task Force reached consensus were highlighted in bold on the list provided to Respondent in order to distinguish them from the non-consensus items. On September 30, 2002, Respondent presented the ten options on which the Task Force reached consensus to the School Board. However, he recommended that the School Board only approve several of the options recommended by the Task Force. Respondent did not present any of the options on which the Task Force failed to reach a consensus to the School Board. Mr. Martin did not report Respondent's failure to allow public access to the first Task Force meeting to the School Board, even though he considered Respondent's actions to be a violation of the Sunshine Law. Indeed, the issue was formally discussed by the School Board prior to March 2003, when it voted to bring the Charges against Respondent. Change in Start Time for the North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts As part of the changes to the school start times approved by the School Board in November 2002, the start time for the North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts (Academy) was changed from 8:45 a.m. to 9:05 a.m. That change was to go into effect in January 2003 when the second semester of school began. In early December 2002, Respondent was asked by the Academy's principal whether the school's start time could be changed back to 8:45 a.m. That change was supported by school's advisory counsel, its teachers, and its administration. After being told by Mr. Campbell that changing the Academy's start time back to 8:45 a.m. would not impact the transportation plan, fiscally or otherwise, Respondent approved the change. The effect of the change was that the Academy's start time was moved back 20 minutes. At the time he approved the change, Respondent only had the authority to change start times by "plus or minus 15 minutes." That authority had been granted to Respondent in August 2002. Accordingly, the 20-minute change exceeded Respondent's legal authority by five minutes. Respondent did not request approval from the School Board to change the Academy's start time nor did he inform the School Board that he made the change. The School Board members first became aware of the change when they were asked for comments on the change by the local newspaper. being confronted by the School Board members regarding the fact that the change exceeded his delegated authority, Respondent apologized for not communicating with the School Board regarding the change, and he moved the Academy's start time to 8:50 a.m. so that it was within the 15-minute deviation authorized by the School Board. Respondent did not expressly apologize for exceeding the authority delegated to him by the School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board issue a final order which determines that its termination of Respondent's employment as superintendent was "for cause." DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 7th day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to suspend for 30 workdays, without pay, a paraprofessional for just cause based upon the allegation that he kicked an autistic student and struck the student with an umbrella.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Robert Blanc ("Blanc") had worked in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for more than 20 years. During the 2006-07 school year, and at all times relevant to this case, Blanc was employed as a therapeutic paraprofessional at South Miami Senior High School, where he provided educational services to students with disabilities. The alleged incident giving rise to this case occurred on Friday, October 12, 2007. The School Board alleges that on that date, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Blanc kicked an autistic student named C. R. in the leg, and then used his umbrella to strike C. R. on the arm. This allegation is based on the accusations of two purported eyewitness (hereafter, collectively, the "Accusers")——Julie Ann Rodriguez and Nemy Aimable——both of whom were (and as of the final hearing continued to be) education paraprofessionals working at South Miami Senior High School. Blanc consistently has maintained his innocence, denying that he kicked or struck C. R. as charged. Moreover, he claims——and testified at hearing——that C. R. kicked him, and that he (Blanc) then used verbal commands to redirect C. R. and get the student to sit down, thereby protecting himself and others. This case boils down to a credibility contest between the Accusers and Blanc. If the Accusers' account is truthful and accurate, then Blanc is guilty of at least one of the charges against him and should be disciplined. On the other hand, if Blanc's account is believed, then he is not guilty of misconduct. Given that the credibility determination drives the outcome, the undersigned will first, as a predicate to evaluating the evidence, set forth the competing accounts of the incident in question, and then make determinations, to the extent possible, as to what might have happened. It is important to note, however, that unless otherwise specifically stated, the findings in the next two sections merely report what the respective witnesses said occurred; these do not necessarily correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place on October 12, 2007. The Accusers' Story While the respective accounts of Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable concerning the incident in question differ as to some nontrivial details, they agree on the big picture. Their story begins at about 2:30 on a Friday afternoon. The Accusers were on "bus duty," as were other staff members, as was Blanc. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable were sitting next to one another on a wall or ledge overlooking a field of grass that lay between them and the road where a line a buses stood waiting for children to clamber aboard. This was a busy time of day, and many people were moving about the bus loading area. Sitting on the long wall with the Accusers were a number of other school employees——at least 25 teachers and aides in all, maybe more, Ms. Rodriguez recalled (and the undersigned finds). Blanc, however, was not sitting on the wall; he was standing on the grass, among the students. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable were engaged in conversation, when suddenly each noticed Blanc——who was located about 10 feet in front of them——kick C. R. on the leg and strike the student with an umbrella across the upper body. Ms. Rodriguez recalls that C. R. was sitting down on a ledge, near other faculty members, when Blanc attacked. Mr. Aimable, in contrast, remembers C. R. standing in the grass when Blanc struck. According to Ms. Rodriguez, Blanc yelled at C. R., threatening to "beat up" the student if C. R. ever hit Blanc again. Mr. Aimable does not recall Blanc making such a threat, although he vaguely remembers Blanc uttering something about not letting C. R. get away with hitting him. By their own admissions, which are accepted as credible and found as fact, neither of the Accusers saw anything that transpired between Blanc and C. R. before the alleged battery. The altercation upset Ms. Rodriguez, and she began to cry. She and Mr. Aimable continued talking——but not about the battery they had just witnessed. It is undisputed that neither of them made any attempt to protect C. R. or other students from Blanc; nor did they examine C. R. for injuries or offer any assistance.1 No one else did either. Apparently none of the other staff members on the scene saw Blanc attack C. R., and the Accusers (it is found, again based on undisputed evidence) did not mention to anyone sitting near them on the wall the remarkable event they had seen. About ten minutes later, the Accusers rose from the wall and walked to the office, where they would "sign out" for the day. Blanc's Testimony Blanc, who was on bus duty the afternoon of Friday, October 12, 2007, was standing in the middle of the grassy area near the buses, chatting with another teacher, when he felt a sharp pain in his lower right leg. C. R. had just kicked him hard, without warning, and was now pressing very close, invading his personal space. C. R. is a special education student who has been diagnosed with autism. He is reportedly nonverbal. (C. R. did not appear at the final hearing.) It is an undisputed fact that C. R. has a history of violent and assaultive behavior: he has injured teachers and once broke a bus driver's nose; in addition, he hurt a student by striking her in the stomach. Also material are the undisputed facts that C. R. is an adult- sized male who, at the time of the incident, was 17 years old, stood approximately six feet tall, and weighed about 200 pounds. Blanc, who is blind in one eye, was taken by surprise when C. R. attacked him. Though his hands were full——Blanc was holding a collapsible umbrella in one hand and a coffee mug in the other——he raised his arms to protect his face, yelled at C. R. to sit down, and began backing C. R. toward the ledge, where he could be seated. This approach worked. C. R. sat down, and the situation was defused. At this point, Isidro Alfonso, who is C. R.'s one-on-one paraprofessional, took charge of C. R. Blanc immediately reported to his supervisor, Yvette Williams, that C. R. had kicked him. Ms. Williams was (and as of the final hearing continued to be) a special education teacher at South Miami Senior High School. She, too, was on bus duty that day but had arrived on the scene after the incident took place. Blanc told Ms. Williams that he was going home to put ice on his ankle, which hurt. Ms. Williams saw no need to report the incident because C. R. was known to lash out at teachers and others. Blanc, for his part, declined to make a formal report out of concern for Mr. Alfonso, who, he felt certain, would be disciplined for inattentiveness if the matter were brought to the attention of the administration. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict The competing accounts of what occurred are sufficiently in conflict that both cannot simultaneously be considered fully accurate. The fact-finder's dilemma is that neither account——the Accusers' on the one hand, Blanc's on the other——is inherently incredible, impossible, or patently a fabrication; neither, in short, can be readily or easily dismissed as false. Of course, it is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is that the incident took place as described by the respective witnesses. In evaluating the credibility of the witnesses who testified against Blanc, the undersigned has considered the relationship that existed between Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable, as well as their post-incident conduct. As mentioned above, after the incident, the Accusers walked to the office together, arriving at about 2:45 p.m. At some point, they agreed to report what they had observed, namely that Blanc had physically attacked a disabled student. Yet, once the two were in the office, they decided that it was "too busy" there——and so, rather than waiting to be seen, they left after at most ten minutes, without telling anyone in authority that Blanc had (at least as they understood the situation) committed a battery on a minor. This impatience seems a bit strange, given the circumstances. The undersigned supposes that a reasonable school employee, having witnessed an incident as serious as the one the Accusers claim to have seen, would have been insistent about speaking to someone in the administration about it. That the Accusers lacked such persistence does not completely discredit them, but it does raise doubts about their veracity. Leaving the office, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable walked to the parking lot, got into Ms. Rodriguez's car, and drove off the premises together, around three o'clock. This was not unusual for them: they carpooled to work. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable were not, in other words, merely co-workers; they were co-workers who spent off-duty time together. The Accusers made two stops on the way home that day, to pick up Ms. Rodriguez's children from their respective schools. Ms. Rodriguez then dropped off Mr. Aimable at his place. By that time, it was about 3:35 p.m. At home, Mr. Aimable continued to stew about the incident, he says, and after about an hour, around 4:30, he called Ms. Rodriguez to ask that she pick him up and return with him to the school to report the matter. According to Mr. Aimable, Ms. Rodriguez assented; she arrived at his residence around 4:50 p.m. From there, they proceeded to the school, where they eventually found an assistant principal, Ms. Tudor. It was now around 5:30 Friday evening, some three hours after the alleged event. Each of the Accusers prepared for Ms. Tudor a written statement about the incident. According to Mr. Aimable, this process took until about 6:45 p.m., at which time the Accusers went home. Later Friday night, at a homecoming dance, Ms. Tudor notified the school's principal, Gilberto Bonce, about the complaint made earlier against Blanc; she also let him know that the Accusers' statements were on his desk. Mr. Bonce took no action that night, however, nor did he do anything in reference to alleged incident over the weekend or during the following Monday, October 15. Curiously, in view of the possibility (if the Accusers were believed) that one of his staff might have committed a crime against a student, Mr. Bonce did not report the matter to the school police until Tuesday, October 16, 2007. All in all, the circumstances——especially the following——give the undersigned reasons to discount the Accusers' testimonies. The failure of Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable to take any immediate action at the scene of the incident not only is inconsistent with their claim to have seen Blanc beat C. R., but also it ensured that there would be no better evidence than their eyewitness accounts of a sudden and unexpected, fast-moving event whose duration can be measured in seconds. Had the Accusers gone to the aid of C. R., as a reasonable, responsible adult in their position should have done, they could have examined him for injuries. If Blanc had given C. R. a hard kick in the leg and struck him with an umbrella, the blows likely would have left at least a red mark somewhere on the student's body. Mr. Aimable, for example, could have studied such a mark or welt, not for a moment, but long enough to form a firm, lasting impression, one less subject to misinterpretation or distortion than the mental image left behind after catching a fleeting glimpse of activity that occurred unexpectedly in his field of vision, while focused on something else. Testimony about such an injury would have been compelling. But there was none. The Accusers' decision not to report the incident immediately because it was too "busy" in the office is inconsistent with the gravity of the alleged misconduct. But more than that, because Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable left the premises together before telling anyone about what they claim they saw, the two had ample opportunity to talk privately for a couple of hours——plenty of time to "get their story straight." One does not need to believe that the Accusers consciously intended to harm Blanc to realize that their discussing the incident (which they must have done——after all, they returned to the school on a Friday evening to make a report about it) likely helped them reach a consensus about what had happened, potentially corrupting their memories in the process. The Accusers' respective accounts are not, at bottom, independent accounts, and may, in fact, be dependent on one another.2 Indeed, in this case, one eyewitness might have been more persuasive than these two. Finally, it is significant that, while the incident took place in full view of more than two dozen responsible adults, not one of them intervened——and no one (besides the Accusers) even saw the altercation. To be sure, these facts cut both ways: nobody saw C. R. kick Blanc or intervened to help him either. Nevertheless, as between the competing scenarios, it seems more likely that C. R. was the attacker, rather than the other way around, for at least two reasons. First, C. R. had a history of assaultive behavior whereas Blanc did not. Second, if Blanc were inclined to hit C. R., he likely would have refrained from doing so in broad daylight before an audience of his peers. C. R., on the other hand, being severely autistic and physically aggressive in nature, would not likely have been deterred by the presence of witnesses. Taken as a whole, the evidence is insufficient to establish that, more likely than not, Blanc struck C. R. as alleged. Based on the evidence, the undersigned believes that, as between the two scenarios presented, the incident more likely occurred as Blanc described it; in other words, relative to Accusers' account, Blanc's is more likely true. Accordingly, the undersigned accepts and adopts, as findings of historical fact, the statements made in paragraphs 12 through 15 above. The upshot is that the School Board failed to carry its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Blanc committed a disciplinable offense. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Blanc is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence and threatening behavior in the workplace. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Blanc is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Blanc is guilty of violating the School Board's Code of Ethics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Blanc of all charges brought against him in this proceeding and awarding him the back pay, plus benefits if any, which accrued while he served the previously imposed suspension of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2009.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Theresa Callahan, should be dismissed as a member of the instructional staff of the Palm Beach County School Board. Respondent's dismissal has been recommended by the Petitioner, Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent of Schools, on the basis of allegations set forth in an Amended Petition For Dismissal in which it is alleged that the Respondent was incompetent and guilty of misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty, and gross insubordination, and subject to dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. Petitioner based these charges on allegations of the Respondent's repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law as requested by her supervisor(s), her repeated failure to communicate and relate to her students in the classroom to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimal educational experience, her continued verbal abuse of her co-workers, her continued denial of basic rights to her ESOL students and her discriminatory application of discipline to Haitian students. Numerous sub- issues are set forth at pages 15 through 18 of the Parties' Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and on the credible evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: Stipulated facts The Respondent has been employed as a classroom teacher with the Palm Beach County School Board since August 21, 1967. Respondent received her continuing contract of employment in November 1971. The Respondent was initially employed by the District as a Television Studio Teacher from August 1967 until June 1, 1970. In October 1970, the Respondent served in the capacity of an Elementary Education Teacher with the District. She held that position until June 1973. From August 1973 through November 1976, the Respondent worked as a Resource Teacher within the School Board's Bilingual Project. In August 1976, she was assigned to Pine Grove Elementary School where she worked as a bilingual teacher until November 1978. Effective December 1, 1978, through the present, the Respondent worked as a Bilingual Education Teacher at Atlantic High School and Boca Raton High School. Respondent is currently assigned and is fully certified to teach ESOL (Bilingual Education) to students in grades seven through twelve at Atlantic High School and Boca Raton High School. Respondent's present principals, Ms. Carole J. Shetler, Atlantic High School, and Dr. Norman Shearin, Boca Raton High School, are both charged with assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all employees at their schools, including the Respondent. Respondent acknowledges the receipt in January 1986 from the principal of Atlantic High School of a mid-year evaluation of her performance as a classroom teacher identifying that she needed to improve her performance in the following areas: Planning for Instruction; Communication, Verbal and Non-Verbal; Effective Working Relationship with Associates; Accepts Constructive Suggestions; and Submits Reports on Time. However, Respondent disagreed with the content of that evaluation. Respondent also received a mid-year evaluation from the principal at Boca Raton High School in which she was rated "Very Good" in five areas, "Satisfactory" in eleven areas and "Improvement Needed" in only one area which pertained solely to submitting timely reports. In the Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1985-1986 school year, the principal at Atlantic High School noted that she needed to improve her performance in the areas of: Instructional Organization and Development; Communication, Verbal and Non-Verbal; Climate; and Effective Working Relationship with Associates. The areas titled "Planning for Instruction" and "Accepts Constructive Suggestions" had gone from improvement needed in the 1986 mid-year evaluation to unsatisfactory in the 1986 annual evaluation. Respondent acknowledged agreement with the content of that evaluation. In February 1987, the Respondent received another mid-year evaluation from the principal of Atlantic High School. The areas noted for improvement needed were: Planning for Instruction; Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Climate; Effective Working Relationship with Asso-ciates; and Organizes for Efficient Use of Resources. The area titled "Accepts Constructive Suggestions" was still noted as unsatisfactory. However, Respondent disagreed with the content of that evaluation which she so noted thereon. She also forwarded the District and the Atlantic High School Principal her letter dated March 12, 1987, stating her disagreement with the mid-year evaluation. In the recommendation section of the 1987 mid-year evaluation, the principal of Atlantic High School gave the Respondent four directives: Comply with request to take Assertive Discipline Training; Develop an Assertive Discipline Plan; Work in a positive and professional way with associates; and Complete appropriate lesson plans and utilize time for instruction. In May of 1987, the principal of Boca Raton High School, the Respondent's other work site, completed an annual evaluation of the Respondent's performance. The areas noted as improvement needed were: Planning for Instruction; and Organizes for Efficient use of Resources. The area titled "Submits Reports on time" was noted as unsatisfactory. The two areas noted as problem areas (Planning for Instruction and Organizes for Efficient use of Resources) were also addressed in the Respondent's 1987 mid- year evaluation by the principal of Atlantic High School. However, also noted in the May 1987 annual evaluation from the principal at Boca Raton High School, the Respondent was also rated as "Outstanding" in two areas, "Very Good" in four areas and "Satisfactory" in eight areas. The Respondent's annual evaluation from the principal of Atlantic High School reflects that the Respondent failed to improve the deficiencies noted in her 1987 mid-year evaluation. The Respondent still had seven areas which were classified as improvement needed. Those areas were: Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Communication, Verbal and Non-Verbal; Climate; Effective Working Relationship with Asso-ciates; Accepts Constructive Suggestions; and Organizes for Efficient Use of Resources. However, as reflected in the May 1987 annual evaluation from the principal at Boca Raton High School, the Respondent was rated as "Outstanding" in two areas (Adheres to Defined Duty Days and Is Punctual) and "Very Good" in four areas (Management of Student Conduct, Communication, Verbal and Non-Verbal, Effective Working Relationship With Parents, and, Accepts Constructive Suggestions). The Respondent received an overall "Satisfactory" annual evaluation in May 1988 from the principal/assistant principal at Atlantic High School, although she did receive three areas of concern titled: Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; and Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate. In May 1988, Respondent also received her annual evaluation from the principal/assistant principal at Boca Raton High School. Every area was marked as "Acceptable" (satisfactory) and Respondent was given two commendations ("Accepting atmosphere - students from many cultures appear relatively comfortable" and "Practical application of English to the business world and their world"). In the Respondent's January 1989 mid-year evaluation by the principal/assistant principal at both Atlantic High School and Boca Raton High School, five areas of concern were reflected. They were: Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Develop-ment; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Climate; Demonstrates Self Control; and Demonstrates Effective Working Relationship with Co-Workers. At or about that same time, the principal of Atlantic High School also tendered Respondent with a deficiency notice dated January 24, 1989, stating that Respondent failed to use her assertive discipline plan, delayed her lesson a significant part of the class period, failed to use appropriate language when she communicated with her students and her Aide, and refused to help a student who said they did not understand. About that same time, Respondent was also placed on a Professional Development Plan ("PDP") by both school administrations with respect to each identified area of concern, instructed to comply with certain informational/instructional strategies, and to demonstrate improvement in such areas within 30 days of commencement of the PDP. Respondent disagreed with the content of the Boca Raton High School evaluations/PDP but nonetheless did comply with and satisfactorily complete the specified instructional strategies set forth therein timely within the 30-day timeline schedule. The Respondent remained on both mid-year PDP's until the end of the school year. In June 1989 the principal at Atlantic High School tendered Respondent her annual evaluation also identifying the previous five areas of concern. In May 1989 the principal at Boca Raton High School tendered Respondent her annual evaluation identifying the previous five areas of concern as well as an additional one titled "Adheres to and Enforces School Policies." About the same time as tender of the respective annual evaluations, both principals again issued Respondent another PDP, each enumerating the respective annual evaluation areas of concern cited therein. Both PDP's again instructed Respondent to comply with certain informational/instructional strategies, and to demonstrate improvement in such areas within 30 days of commencement of the PDP. By letter dated June 8, 1989, to the District, with copies to the principal and assistant principal (her evaluator) at Boca Raton High School, Respondent stated her disagreement with the annual evaluation, acknowledged the earlier problem with the former aide, objected to the alleged deficiency in the annual evaluation on that issue since it was already identified on the mid-year evaluation, and agreed to work to improve on the areas noted in the annual PDP to demonstrate satisfactory performance. About September 1989, the Respondent attended District Level Remediation pursuant to the PDP's as directed by both schools. The workshops were scheduled for September 12, 1989, on Instructional Organization and Development and Communication Verbal and Non-Verbal; and September 13, 1989, on Management of Student Conduct and Classroom Climate. By letter dated December 6, 1989, the principal of Boca Raton High School informed the Respondent that her "performance in the classroom remains unsatisfactory" and stated the reason for the principal's decision and attached the evaluation instruments. In January 1990, the principal of Atlantic High School reviewed the Respondent's performance based on the results of her observations, the observations of Respondent in the classroom by the assistant principals, and the ESOL program coordinating teacher. The principal advised the Respondent that the five concern areas cited in her January and June 1989 evaluations were still areas of concern. The principal also informed the Respondent that two additional areas had been identified. The seven areas noted as concern on the 1990 mid-year evaluation and in the deficiency notice were: Management of Student Conduct; Instructional Organization and Development; Establishes an Appropriate Classroom Cli-mate; Demonstrates Ability to Plan Effectively; Demonstrates Self Control; Demonstrates Effective Relationship with CoWorkers; and Adheres to and Enforces School Policies. Thereafter, in March 1990 Respondent was suspended and has remained suspended without pay since about mid-March 1990. The original petition and the instant Petition were later filed seeking Respondent's removal from/termination of her continuing contract teaching position with the District. During all times material, Respondent was the only teacher teaching English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) at Atlantic and Boca. Facts established at the hearing The Respondent's ESOL Educational/Teaching Background Before she began teaching ESOL at Atlantic High School and Boca Raton High School about the 1978-79 school year, Respondent worked in the District's bilingual program where she wrote the grant for funding the bilingual program and trained teacher aides for that program. Respondent holds a Florida teaching certificate in ESOL, and is also certified through about 1996 in supervision, Spanish, and bilingual education. She has a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities, with a major in Spanish, a Master of Arts in Education, both from FAU, two and one-half years completed toward a 3- year Doctorate at Nova University in the field of administration and supervision, and various extension courses. She has been active in various bilingual and/or ESOL education organizations and activities (including Gulf TESOL and the ESOL Leadership Conferences) which include supervisors, coordinators, and other teachers, and her activities included providing advisory input concerning developments in bilingual/ESOL education to school districts, the Department of Education, and various universities which educate/train other such persons. At all times material, Respondent's classes were comprised of limited English proficient (LEP) students who had various English speaking, reading, and writing skill levels, which required Respondent to provide individualized and/or small group instruction and rotate between such persons and/or groups. Such "multi-level" instruction is the biggest challenge to ESOL educators. The Administrators who supervised, evaluated, or observed Respondent The ESOL Program for which Respondent was responsible was part of the English Department. The Chairperson of the English Department was Warren O'Toole. Although department chairpersons may be involved in some situations involving teachers, they are not involved with evaluation problems. Department chairpersons are not an official part of the administration, since they are members of the same bargaining unit as teachers. Department chairpersons lack the authority to conduct formal evaluations of teachers, or to recommend the termination of a teacher. Carole J. Shetler, the current principal at Atlantic High School, has been employed by the Palm Beach County School Board for sixteen years. She has served in the capacity of a classroom teacher, an assistant principal, an administrative assistant, and for the past six years as the principal of Atlantic High School. Ms. Shetler holds certificates from the State of Florida in the areas of English and Administration and Supervision. Ms. Shetler's duties require her to hire and evaluate personnel, manage the budget of the school, supervise student discipline and to supervise the instructional program at Atlantic High School. Since Ms. Shetler first became aware of the Respondent's teaching, in 1984, five administrators at Atlantic High School, including herself, have participated extensively in the Respondent's evaluation process. They were Ms. Shetler, Mr. Perlman, Mr. Williams, Ms. Dawson, and Ms. Thurber. Ms. Shetler observed the Respondent directly in the classroom and she also reviewed observations conducted by her assistant principals and district personnel who were called in to observe the Respondent. Dr. Clara DeFrank was the principal of Boca Raton High School from the 1986-87 school year through the end of the 1988-89 school year. Prior to the 1986-87 school year she worked as a principal at Boca Raton Middle School, an assistant principal, the director of guidance, and as a counselor. Dr. DeFrank was employed by the Palm Beach County School Board for 27 years. Dr. DeFrank has doctorate degrees in Education and Administration and Supervision. She also has a Masters Degree in Guidance Counseling and a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism. Dr. DeFrank is certified by the State of Florida in the areas of: (1) Administration & Supervision; (2) English; (3) Journalism; (4) Speech; (5) Social Studies; and (6) Guidance and Counseling. When Dr. DeFrank was assigned as the Principal of Boca Raton High School her duties required her to supervise the entire staff. Her supervisory responsibilities included the hiring of staff, the giving of assistance and recommending termination of staff when necessary. Dr. DeFrank has known the Respondent since the early 1970's. Dr. DeFrank and the Respondent have been able to communicate on an informal basis. For all three years that Dr. DeFrank was assigned to Boca Raton High School, Dr. Robert Murley, an assistant principal, evaluated the Respondent. Dr. Murley has a B.A. Degree in English, a Masters of Education Degree in Personnel and Organizational Behavior, and a Doctorate in Administration of Higher Education and Organizational Behavior. Dr. Murley is certified by the State of Florida in English, as an Assistant Principal, and as a Supervisor. Dr. Murley monitors and assists all of the beginning teachers at Boca Raton High School. Dr. Norman Shearin, the current Principal at Boca Raton High School, has been employed by the Palm Beach County School Board for 24 years. He has served in the capacity of a classroom teacher, department chairman, activities director, athletic coach, dean, assistant principal, and for approximately ten years as a principal. Dr. Shearin has been assigned as Boca Raton High School's Principal since July 1, 1989. Dr. Shearin has a Bachelor Degree in Mathematics and Social Studies, a Masters Degree in Educational Administration and Supervision and a Doctorate Degree in Educational Leadership and Behavioral Research. Dr. Shearin currently holds a Graduate Certificate from the State of Florida which certifies him in Educational Leadership, Mathematics and several other subjects. In addition to Dr. Shearin's employment with the Palm Beach County School Board, he has also served as an Adjunct Professor for Florida Atlantic University and Nova University. Dr. Shearin presently serves as the Senior Faculty Member for the Educational Staff at Nova University. Respondent's evaluator at Atlantic High School for the 1987-88 school year was James O. Williams. He currently holds a teaching certificate and a certificate in Administration and Supervision. Mr. Williams has been employed by the Palm Beach County School System for 25 years. Respondent's evaluator for the 1988-89 school year at Atlantic High School was Ms. Betty Dawson. Ms. Dawson has served in the position of assistant principal for seven years. Ms. Dawson is certified by the State of Florida in the areas of English and Administration and Supervision. Respondent's evaluator for the 1989-90 school year at Atlantic High School was Ms. Jean Thurber. Ms. Thurber has been employed as a teacher and as an assistant principal during her fifteen years of employment with the School Board. Ms. Thurber has a Bachelor's Degree in Art Education and English, and a Master's Degree in Administration and Supervision. Ms. Thurber is certified as an administrator. Ms. Diane Larange observed the Respondent on September 11, 1989. Ms. Larange has served as the ESOL Program Coordinating Teacher for nine of the twenty years she has worked for the School Board. Ms. Larange is an expert in bilingual education. She has a Master's Degree in Bilingual Education and a Bachelor's Degree in French with a Minor in Spanish and Foreign Language Education. Periodic Observations/Evaluations/PDP's 1/ Teachers are notified in the pre-school week of the evaluation forms which will be used and the basis upon which the teacher will be evaluated. Boca Raton High School also utilizes a mid-year evaluation, in addition to the final evaluation, to assist teachers by pointing out deficiencies prior to the end of the school year. Teachers are notified of the approximate date when the formal observation will take place. The periodic evaluations issued before the 1987-88 school year at Atlantic High School and Boca Raton High School did not reflect an overall satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating but did provide for the teacher to state agreement or disagreement with the content. The mid-year evaluation and the annual evaluation of Respondent's performance at Atlantic High School during the 1985-86 school year reflected the school administrators' concern about their perception of Respondent's interaction with Lloyd Taylor, her ESOL Aide. Respondent was given a letter of expectation by Ms. Shetler, dated October 7, 1986. The purpose of the letter was to set expectations for the new school year so that the problems noted in the prior school year could be avoided. Ms. Shetler was willing to assist Respondent with her noted problems. On February 17, 1987, Ms. Shetler had a conference with Respondent to review progress since the October 7, 1986, Letter of Expectation. During this conference, Respondent interrupted Ms. Shetler and stated that she wished Ms. Shetler "would stop talking about it because it was going in one ear and out the other." Ms. Shetler confirmed the discussion in a letter dated February 24, 1987. During the conference of February 17, 1987, and after the conclusion of the conference, Ms. Shetler felt that Respondent's performance, from the start of the year through their conference, had not improved. Ms. Shetler also believed that the Respondent was unwilling to cooperate with attempts to remediate her performance and behavior. When Ms. Shetler gave the Respondent the evaluation for the 1986-87 school year, she had another conference with the Respondent to discuss the areas that were noted as improvement needed. The specific problems discussed were: (1) The Respondent's waste of classroom time; (2) Respondent's negative classroom climate; (3) Respondent's failure to use the positive aspects of the assertive discipline training which she had been given; (4) Respondent's working relationship with professional staff and (5) Preparing lesson plans. After the evaluation format change in the 1987-88 school year, Respondent's May 1988 annual evaluation by assistant principal James Williams and principal Carole Shetler was overall "satisfactory" (like her May 1988 Boca evaluation), and Respondent received a commendation expressing her willinginess to accept suggestions and grow professionally. It has not been alleged and there is no record evidence that Respondent's performance at Boca before the 1988-89 school year was deemed anything but satisfactory. In the 1987-88 school year, Respondent was evaluated at Boca Raton High School by assistant principal Robert Murley and principal Clara DeFrank when she was rated fully "satisfactory" and awarded two commendations. Respondent's 1988-89 evaluator was assistant principal Betty Dawson who prepared the overall unsatisfactory January 1989 and June 1989 evaluations along with principal Carole Shetler. On October 10, 1988, Ms. Dawson had one of her many conferences with Respondent. Present during the conference were Ms. Shelter, the Respondent, and Ms. Kennedy, the Respondent's Classroom Teachers Association Representative. During the conference, Respondent agreed to use a letter grading system, to make her daily objectives for the students clearer, and to note the objectives on the board. While the meeting was being conducted, the Respondent spoke to her evaluator, Mrs. Dawson, in a manner which indicated that she was upset. On January 11, 1989, Atlantic High School completed a mid-year evaluation of Respondent's performance. The Respondent received five (5) areas of concern on this mid-year evaluation. Attached to Respondent's mid-year evaluation were: (1) October 21, 1988, observation notes, (2) Respondent's November 28, 1988, summative observation instrument, and (3) Summary of the conference which Ms. Dawson had with Respondent on December 1, 1988, which directed Respondent to "work on beginning class on time and handling material." With respect to her January 1989 mid-year evaluation at Atlantic High School, Respondent expressly noted thereon that it was a review of previously discussed ideas and that she disagreed with some of it. She was then placed on her first PDP with a 30-day timeline to complete the remediation prescribed. The numerical concerns on the mid-year evaluation correlate with the "criterion" numbers/areas of concern cited on the PDP. The Respondent's first PDP at Atlantic High School directed the Respondent to: (1) Read Domains 2, 3, and 5, in Domains of the Florida Performance Measurement System; (2) Visit with Ms. Tarkinson's and Ms. Fail's class; (3) "Demonstrate professionalism at all times;" and (4) "Make a sincere positive effort in working toward positive relations with co-workers." Assistant Principal Robert Murley and Principal Clara DeFrank at Boca Raton High School also evaluated Respondent in the 1988-89 school year when a mid-year evaluation was also conducted. Respondent was then cited with five areas of concern (identical to the 5 cited in her Atlantic mid-year evaluation). Like Atlantic's January 1989 mid-year evaluation, since Respondent also had five areas of concern cited at Boca Raton High School, she was placed on a 30-day PDP which she timely complied with and satisfied all of the remediation strategies. Attached to the Respondent's mid-year evaluation at Boca Raton High School in January of 1989 were (1) Summative observations for October 26, 1988, and January 18, 1989; (2) A Deficiency notice dated January 23, 1989; and (3) The Respondent's Professional Development Plan. The concerns expressed in the January 1989 mid-year evaluation at Boca Raton High School were based on the administrators' belief that: (1) The Respondent behaved unprofessionally with her students; (2) The respondent behaved unprofessionally with Ms. DelBarco; The Respondent failed to start class on time; and (4) The Respondent behaved inappropriately during a parent conference. The Respondent's first PDP at Boca Raton High School directed the Respondent to: (1) Read Domains 2 and 3 in Domains of the Florida Performance Measurement System; (2) Complete "Classroom Management Professional Growth Component;" (3) Display a positive professional demeanor at all times; and Demonstrate professional relationship with noninstructional personnel. In a conference which was held on June 12, 1989, the Respondent received her annual evaluation from Atlantic High School. Attached to the Respondent's evaluation were: (1) A deficiency notice dated June 6, 1989; (2) A summary of conferences held with the Respondent from February 23, 1989, through May 11, 1989; (3) Several incident reports involving students; (4) Respondent's summative observations dated February 28, May 1, and June 5, 1989; and (5) The Respondent's up-dated Professional Development Plan which recommended "district level remediation in the Fall." The observation documents reported that during the observations the Respondent either started late or that she had "very little instruction going on." At the time of the conference, Ms. Dawson still had concerns about the Respondent's performance. Although Respondent had successfully complied with and otherwise completed the remediation set forth in her January 1989 (first Atlantic) PDP timely, within the prescribed thirty days, Respondent was nonetheless again cited in those same five areas on her June 1989 evaluation by Dawson and Shetler. The areas of concern/criteria (C-12, self control, and C-13, effective working relationships with coworkers) were cited on both the 1988-89 mid-year and annual evaluations and related PDP's solely because of the September 8, 1988, Delbarco incident even though no other comparable incidents had occurred with any aide, coworker, or administrator. With 5 areas of concern cited (rather than 4 or less), Respondent's annual evaluation was "unsatisfactory' and she was necessarily placed on her Atlantic PDP. Had the areas of "concern" C-12 and C-13 not again been cited on her evaluation, Respondent would not have been placed on her June 1989 second (1988- annual) PDP since she would have had an overall "satisfactory" evaluation. However, since she was again placed on a PDP, she was the subject of District remediation at the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, increased observations, and a mid-year evaluation. Later, in May 1989, Respondent was tendered her annual, and last Boca evaluation, which was also completed by Murley and DeFrank, again citing the same five concerns set forth in the mid-year evaluation, as well as another titled "Adheres to and Enforces School Policies." On September 11, 12, and 13, 1989, the Respondent received District level remediation at the request of both schools. The Respondent was referred for District level remediation because the Administrators at both schools felt like they had exhausted their resources with regard to the workshops, reading, and suggestions they could offer. On September 11, 1989, the Respondent was observed and counseled by Ms. Diane Larange, the ESOL Program Coordinating Teacher. At a later date, Ms. Larange sent Ms. Shetler and the Respondent a list of ESOL teachers she felt the Respondent should visit. Ms. Larange was of the opinion that the observation was overall satisfactory, although there were some minor things that could have been improved. Ms. Larange had previously observed the Respondent on several occasions in prior years and all of those observations were generally satisfactory. On September 12 and 13, 1989, the Respondent received assistance from Dr. Mary Gray, an expert in teacher education. The Respondent was assisted in the areas of: (1) Instructional organization and development; (2) Verbal and nonverbal communication; (3) Management of student conduct; and (4) Classroom climate. During the remediation sessions the Respondent was, in general, unenthusiastic. This was largely because the Respondent did not feel that the remediation offered was addressing any specific professional need relevant to her. The Respondent had requested assistance specifically addressed to the teaching of ESOL classes, which assistance was not provided. At no time prior to December 14, 1989, did Murley or any other Boca administrator or designee discuss with Respondent the results of any of the observations or summatives preceding that date in the 1989-90 school year, including her last (11-1-89) fully satisfactory observation/summative. Ultimately, about January 5, 1990, Respondent was tendered her mid- year evaluation and later a letter with attachments from Shetler dated January 8, 1990, referencing the evaluations and attachments, and advising that further assistance would not be recommended. Except as to her June 1986 annual evaluation, Respondent expressly disagreed with the material content of most of her periodic evaluations setting forth areas allegedly needing improvement, unsatisfactory areas, and/or areas, of concern, from January 1986 through January 1990. In each instance where Respondent disagreed with the material content of those evaluations before the evaluation format change in the 1987-88 school year, Respondent expressly noted her disagreement by marking the box stating "I disagree with the content of this evaluation," and on two such instances she forwarded letters expressing the substance of her disagreement. ESOL Experts and Unique Nature of ESOL Instruction ESOL is an educational program which uses the English language exclusively to teach English to speakers of other languages. ESOL teachers are not required to know the languages spoken by their students. ESOL classes should ideally be taught in a non-threatening manner using fun activities. The field of ESOL encourages the "buddy system." The buddy system pairs a beginning level ESOL student with a higher level ESOL student who speaks the same language. ESOL advocates cooperative learning, in which students help one another. Yvonne Cadiz is an expert in ESOL education such as observing, assessing, evaluating, and providing expert training and teaching, implementing the currently accepted newer ESOL teaching methodologies to ESOL teachers, in advising and assisting county school districts in implementing the service plan containing such newer methodologies and training techniques, and in advising the State Board of Education in those areas to develop rules to implement on-going changes in ESOL education. Ms. Cadiz is the past president of Gulf TESOL and a past sponsor of the ESOL Leadership Conference. The evaluation instrument and related summative used by the District to evaluate teachers is geared primarily to regular classroom teachers, not to teachers of "multi-level" ESOL instruction, which contains unique teaching methodologies. Administrators performing the observations and evaluations using those instruments generally lack the specialized ESOL background to recognize or adequately evaluate ESOL instructional skills or otherwise make effective recommendations on how to improve ESOL educational techniques. At all times material, none of the District's principals or assistant principals assigned to observe or evaluate Respondent had any of the requisite ESOL educational background or knowledge of the unique nature of ESOL education or its teaching methodologies. Accordingly, the criticisms directed to Respondent by such evaluators in their observation summatives, related documents, and periodic evaluations cannot be fully credited as valid and accurate criticisms. Such evaluators or other District administrators do not appear to have adequately observed and/or evaluated Respondent's teaching abilities or to have otherwise suggested or offered competent, adequate, suggestions for improvement or related remediation of perceived performance deficiencies. Accordingly, I credit the opinion of ESOL experts Yvonne Cadiz and Diane Larange that Respondent's classroom teaching skills were satisfactory. Respondent's treatment of work associates An ESOL Aide named Roxana DelBarco was hired for the 1987-88 school year to be an aide in the Respondent's ESOL classes at both Boca Raton High School and Atlantic High School. 2/ Ms. DelBarco apparently worked as the Respondent's ESOL aide for the entire 1987-88 school year without any significant incident. Ms. DelBarco returned in the same capacity for the 1988-89 school year. On September 8, 1988, an incident occurred in which the Respondent became annoyed or frustrated by Ms. DelBarco's inability to successfully complete an errand. In the course of sending Ms. DelBarco on the errand a second time, the Respondent raised her voice or otherwise spoke harshly to Ms. DelBarco in front of the students. The manner in which the Respondent spoke to Ms. DelBarco hurt the latter's feelings and caused her to cry. As a result of the September 8, 1988, incident, Ms. DelBarco decided she no longer wished to work with the Respondent and reported her decision to resign to the school administrators. A conference was held to try to persuade Ms. DelBarco to change her mind. During the course of the conference, the Respondent admitted she had raised her voice, apologized for doing so, and offered to talk to Ms. DelBarco about changing her decision to resign. Ms. DelBarco did not change her mind. As a result of the September 8, 1988, incident involving Ms. DelBarco, the Respondent was given written reprimands by both Atlantic High School and Boca Raton High School. Atlantic High School provided the Respondent with two recommendations: (1) Treat future aides in a "courteous and professional manner," while discussing differences of opinion in private and (2) Communicate with students in a courteous and kind manner, while refraining from "sarcasm or humiliating remarks as a means of discipline." Boca Raton High School advised the Respondent that she was to behave with staff and her students in a manner which demonstrated "positive, courteous interactions free from sarcasm, unnecessary loudness/harshness, or embarrassment in front of others." At the time of the September 8, 1988, incident, the two schools could have disciplined the Respondent by at that time placing her on a PDP, citing "criterions" 12 and 13. Both schools elected not to do so at that time. However, even though there were no similar incidents, both schools cited "criterions" 12 and 13 in the Respondent's mid-year evaluations at both schools, and placed her on PDP's. The Respondent timely and satisfactorily complied with and completed the prescribed remediation set forth in her 1988-89 mid-year PDP's (her first PDP's) without any further incidents relating to "criterions" C-12 or C-13 during the 30-day period specified in the PDP's or during the remainder of the 1988-89 school year. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Respondent's annual evaluations at the end of the 1988-89 school year cited "criterions" C-12 and C-13. As a direct result of these repeat citations, the Respondent was placed on a second PDP at both schools, even though there had been no similar incidents since the DelBarco incident. Had these two "criterions" not again been cited, the Respondent's annual evaluations at both schools would have been satisfactory. In view of the time of and the nature of the September 8, 1988, incident with Ms. DelBarco, and in view of the fact that there were no similar incidents during the remainder of the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent should have received satisfactory annual evaluations at both schools for the 1988-89 school year. 3/ At the beginning of the 1989-90 school year, an ESOL Aide named Maria Montiel was assigned to be the aide in the Respondent's ESOL classes at Atlantic High School. From the very beginning, the Respondent was apparently annoyed by the fact that Ms. Montiel seemed to be somewhat lacking in initiative, energy, and direction, even though Ms. Montiel was, generally, a sweet, warm-hearted, caring person. 4/ The Respondent went to one of the administrators, Ms. Thurber, to explain that she was having problems getting Ms. Montiel to follow instructions. Among other things, Ms. Montiel had questioned whether she was required to perform certain tasks the Respondent had asked her to do; tasks Ms. Montiel seemed to regard as work more appropriate for custodians than for teacher aides. As a result of being dissatisfied and annoyed with Ms. Montiel's performance, on a couple of occasions during the first three weeks of the 1989- school year, the Respondent spoke to Ms. Montiel in a loud voice or in a harsh tone of voice. The Respondent had good reasons for being annoyed on both occasions. After about three weeks, Ms. Montiel decided that she did not wish to work as the Respondent's aide. At Ms. Montiel's request, she was transferred to work at another school. Ms. Montiel's primary reason for not wanting to work with the Respondent was that she felt under-appreciated and under-utilized. During the 1989-90 school year, after Ms. Montiel left, Harvey Lee, Jr., was assigned to work as an aide at Atlantic High School in the Respondent's first period class and for part of the Respondent's planning period. Early in their relationship there was an incident in which the Respondent spoke harshly to Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee discussed the incident with the Respondent, the Respondent apologized to Mr. Lee, and for the remainder of that school year Mr. Lee and the Respondent had a harmonious relationship. During the 1989-90 school year on one occasion the Respondent raised her voice to a substitute teacher, Inga D'Orazio, in front of the class. The Respondent was admonishing the substitute for not following instructions the Respondent had left. 5/ Respondent's treatment of her students The Respondent appears to have a tendency to be impatient with students who are disruptive or who otherwise appear not to be trying to learn. As a result of this tendency, she probably refers more students to the office than the average teacher. 6/ But the evidence in this case does not show that the Respondent regularly engages in inappropriate or excessive disciplinary referrals. 7/ It is probable that the majority of the students the Respondent referred to the office for disciplinary reasons were of Haitian origin. 8/ It is clear that the majority of the students in the Respondent's classes were of Haitian origin. The Respondent's discipline referrals were all based on Respondent's evaluation of the conduct of each student referred. The Respondent did not discriminate on the basis of race or place of national origin in her discipline referrals. The Respondent did not prohibit her students from going to the bathroom during class. She did, however, discourage them from doing so. Her discouragement was consistent with school policy at both schools which generally discouraged teachers from issuing restroom or hall passes to students, absent an emergency. The Respondent provided reasonable assistance to her students at reasonable times and permitted her aides to do likewise. The Respondent would refuse to assist students or to answer student's questions during the course of such activities as lectures or testing. Such refusals were reasonable. At all times relevant to this case, the Respondent communicated with and related to the students in her classrooms to such an extent that the students received at least a minimum educational experience. Miscellaneous Findings The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, has entered into an Agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA), the representative of the teachers' bargaining unit. Said Agreement delineates terms and conditions of employment for teachers and provisions of this Agreement are applicable to Respondent's employment. Teachers at Atlantic High School are expected to have their grade book, attendance book, and lesson plans available for substitute teachers. On one or two occasions during the 1989-90 school year the Respondent may have failed to have a lesson plan available or may have had an inadequate lesson plan available for a substitute. 9/ During the 1986-87 school year, the Respondent was slow in complying with written instructions that she complete her course expectation and class rules. She did, however, ultimately comply.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County issue a final order in this case dismissing all charges in the Amended Petition For Dismissal, restoring the Respondent to her position of employment on the instructional staff, and awarding the Respondent back pay from the date of her suspension without pay until the day she is restored to her position of employment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June 1991.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(f), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 8., and, 6A- 10.081(2)(b)1., and 3., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. If it is found that Respondent has committed any of the statute or rule violations alleged, the penalty that should be imposed must also be determined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the documentary evidence admitted, and the record as a whole, the following facts are found: Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate Number 1294936, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and Reading, which was valid through June 30, 2020. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a Reading Teacher at Don Estridge High Tech Middle School ("Don Estridge") in the Palm Beach County School District. C.V.'s Relevant Background During the 2017-2018 school year, C.V. was an eighth-grade student at Don Estridge. Respondent was his intensive reading teacher. Intensive reading is a remedial course for students who are reading below grade level. Prior to working with Respondent, C.V.'s grades were below average. He received D's and F's in school. In 2016, C.V.'s mother, Renee Horn, married C.V.'s stepfather, Charles Horn. Prior to that marriage, C.V. was an only child living alone with his mother from the time he was two years old. C.V.'s stepfather also had children from a previous relationship. At the time C.V. met Respondent, his parents observed that he was having a difficult time adjusting to their newly- blended family. C.V.'s parents allowed him to spend time with his biological father. However, in their parental judgment, they believed that it was in C.V.'s best interest to limit visitation with his biological father. C.V.'s parents observed that C.V. displayed signs of non-characteristic fragility and volatility while he was under the instruction of Respondent, which concerned them. C.V.'s parents believed that the demonstrated emotional changes in C.V. were related to his friendship with Respondent and his resistance to the parents' desire to draw more boundaries with respect to that friendship. C.V. did not testify. Therefore, the source, or sources, of the behavioral issues observed by his parents and other adults around him were not conclusively established. Respondent's Relevant Background Respondent viewed herself as a teacher who was relatable to her students. She was an enthusiastic and energetic educator who enjoyed taking the time to help students whom she described as having previously slipped through the cracks. Respondent regularly provided extra help to students who requested it. Her door was open to any of her students who desired additional assistance with their school work. She regularly provided academic help to students during her lunch break. Tutoring C.V. first began receiving extra help with his school work from Respondent during his lunch period. In addition to C.V., Respondent regularly had between five and 15 other students in her classroom during the seventh-grade lunch period. This was also the time allotted to Respondent for her own lunch break. There was also a group varying between five and ten students whom she allowed to come to her classroom to work while she was teaching another class. Additionally, C.V. came to Respondent for help with his work in the mornings before school started. After C.V. began spending extra time working with Respondent, his grades improved. C.V.'s parents were aware of the correlation between the help from Respondent and the improvement in C.V.'s academic performance. In December of 2017, C.V.'s mother contacted Respondent and asked her to tutor C.V. outside of school on a private basis in exchange for payment. Respondent communicated with C.V.'s mother through email and text messages. Respondent authorized C.V.'s mother to give Respondent's cell phone number to C.V. so that he could communicate with her directly for educational purposes while the mother was at work. There was no evidence of the content of any text messages between Respondent and C.V. C.V. rode the school bus as his mode of transportation to return home after school. He was unable to stay after school for tutoring and still take the bus to get home. Although it was common for teachers to tutor students at a public library located near Don Estridge, Respondent found that when doing so, she often had to wait with students after tutoring sessions at the library for parents to arrive to provide transportation. This sometimes interfered with Respondent's ability to pick up her own children from preschool on time. For that reason, Respondent tutored C.V. after school at his home. She ensured that others were present at the home during tutoring sessions. Respondent also continued helping C.V. at school outside of his scheduled time in her class on an unpaid basis. With the consent of C.V.'s mother, Respondent transported C.V. from the school to his home either after helping him at school or when she was going to his home to tutor him. There was one occasion when Respondent drove C.V. to school for which it was unclear whether the parents gave her permission to do so. Believing that C.V. had developed an unhealthy attachment to Respondent, C.V.'s parents desired to limit his interaction with her. However, they did not terminate the tutoring sessions. Additionally, C.V.'s mother initiated contact between Respondent and C.V. on matters unrelated to academics amid the parents' efforts to create boundaries in the relationship. C.V.'s Time Spent in Respondent's Classroom In order to come to her classroom during their designated lunch periods, students were required to have a pass signed by Respondent. Those students who came to Respondent's classroom during lunch regularly reused the same pass to eliminate the need for her to create a new pass each time. C.V., along with other students, had such a pass issued by Respondent. Several witnesses testified that C.V. had a sticker on the back of his student identification card, which they characterized as a permanent pass placed there by Respondent, enabling C.V. to visit her classroom at any time. However, the provenance and meaning of the sticker were never conclusively established. On several occasions, C.V. left his elective music class to do work from other classes in Respondent's classroom. He did so with the coordinated permission of Respondent and the music teacher. Respondent believed that it was reasonable for C.V. to do so because her classroom provided a quieter environment for his studies and he was ahead in the music class because of his existing background in piano. When C.V.'s parents learned how much time C.V. was spending in Respondent's classroom during the school day, they thought that it was excessive. Church Attendance and Sharing Religious Beliefs Respondent served as an unpaid worship leader and co-runner of the children's ministry at a church where her father was the pastor. Neither she, nor any other person, served in a role designated to recruit members to the church. Respondent did not receive any incentive from the church to bring in new members. Respondent played music of various genres in her classroom. Sometimes she played Christian music. Respondent wore a cross necklace to school. When asked, she was open with students about the general fact that she was a Christian and that she attended church. Witnesses observed flyers with information about Respondent's father's church on her desk. It was not established that any students received, or even saw, the flyers. Some of Respondent's students have attended her father's church. When a student expressed interest in the church, Respondent did not give the student information about the church without express permission from a parent. With the permission of his parents, C.V. attended Respondent's father's church on several occasions. His parents attended the church with him on one occasion. Also, with the permission of his parents, C.V. was transported to and from church by Respondent or her husband and spent time with Respondent's family at her home after church. At some point, C.V. told some of his classmates that he attended Respondent's church. The nature of C.V.'s comments to his classmates about attending church with Respondent remains unclear. The evidence did not establish that Respondent directed him to do so. Admittedly out of frustration, Respondent posted a Psalm on the door outside of her classroom before leaving Don Estridge on her last day. She had contemplated handing the Psalm to Principal Capitano, but chose to place it on the door instead. A teacher observed the Psalm on the door, and an assistant principal removed it. Overnight Visits On one occasion, C.V. spent the night at Respondent's home with her family while his mother was out of town on a business trip. Having the impression that C.V. was unhappy at the prospect of going on the trip, Respondent and C.V.'s mother arranged for C.V. to stay with Respondent and her family for the weekend. C.V. spent the night at Respondent's home on a second occasion, which was also coordinated between Respondent and C.V.'s mother. C.V. expressed that he wanted to live with Respondent and that he knew more about her than her husband. Exchanging Gifts C.V.'s mother gave Respondent a number of gifts during the time when she was C.V.'s teacher. As a Christmas gift, C.V.'s mother gave Respondent a $100 gift card and two lipsticks. Later, she gave Respondent dresses for her daughters. Finally, for Valentine's Day, she gave Respondent a stuffed animal and a thermal water bottle. Respondent considered the series of gifts to be very generous. C.V.'s birthday was in February. Respondent wanted to reciprocate the generosity of C.V.'s mother by buying C.V. clothes for his birthday. Respondent sought permission from C.V.'s mother to purchase him clothing, which his mother declined. Believing that C.V.'s mother declined the gifts out of social politeness, Respondent ultimately bought him clothing for his birthday. Virginity Conversation One day during class, some of Respondent's students were discussing the topic of virginity among themselves. Respondent was not a party to the conversation until C.V. asked her at what age she thought kids should lose their virginity. Respondent believed that this was an age-appropriate topic for her 12- and 13-year old students to be curious about, but she declined to answer the question. She then told C.V. that it was not an appropriate question for her and that he should ask his mother instead. Although numerous witnesses testified to what they thought Respondent said to her students about virginity, Respondent is the only witness who was present during the conversation. Her testimony on the subject was credible. Principal Capitano testified that if a student brings up the topic of virginity to a teacher, the teacher should respond by saying that it is not an appropriate conversation to have. Meeting with the Guidance Counselor and Aftermath On March 12, 2018, Respondent became concerned that C.V. was exhibiting behavior that caused her to fear that he was considering harming himself. Although she did not believe that C.V. wanted to go, Respondent escorted him to see one of the school's guidance counselors, Kristen Saffici. Respondent took this action because she believed it was her obligation to do so based on C.V.'s behavior, which she considered potentially self-injurious. Counselor Saffici and Principal Capitano agreed that bringing C.V. to a guidance counselor was the appropriate course of action for Respondent under the circumstances. Respondent remained in the meeting with Counselor Saffici and C.V. Respondent told Counselor Saffici about her impressions of the problems C.V. was having. Over the course of explaining the background of what she believed to be C.V.'s problems, Respondent stated that she "loved him like a son." Counselor Saffici thought that the statement was inappropriate. From Respondent's perspective, saying that she loved C.V. like a son was a device she regularly employed with students to offset, or soften, a concurrent critical statement. During the meeting, Counselor Saffici observed that C.V. appeared withdrawn and sullen. He had his backpack on the table with his head down on the backpack and did not make eye contact. Respondent consoled C.V. by rubbing his head. Counselor Saffici believed that Respondent's behavior toward C.V. was not appropriate. Counselor Saffici, however, did not perceive the behavior to be sexual in nature. Based on her observations, Counselor Saffici believed that Respondent had no mal intent. It was her opinion that Respondent had C.V.'s best interest at heart. Following the meeting with Counselor Saffici, the school resource officer, Gary Chapman, interviewed C.V. independently to determine whether C.V. was a threat to himself or others. Officer Chapman concluded that C.V. was not considering self-harm at that time. Based on the interview, Officer Chapman's understanding was that C.V.'s emotional distress was related to his desire to see his biological father more often. C.V.'s parents met with Principal Capitano, Counselor Saffici, and Officer Chapman. Having determined that there was no reason to suspect a sexual relationship between Respondent and C.V., Officer Chapman closed his investigation. Principal Capitano told Respondent not to have further contact with C.V. The next day, C.V. came, unexpectedly, to Respondent's classroom to see her. Respondent spoke to him, but tried to get him to leave without alarming him or being rude. After C.V. left, Respondent immediately advised Principal Capitano and Counselor Saffici that he came to her classroom, and Respondent sought their guidance on what to do. Feeling that she did not have clear direction on what to do if C.V. came back, Respondent posted a Psalm on her door and left Don Estridge after her first-period class. In a letter dated March 16, 2018, Principal Capitano recommended Respondent's termination as a probationary employee at Don Estridge, effective March 27, 2018. The letter did not specify a reason for Respondent's termination, but stated: "Probationary Contract Employees may be dismissed without cause or may resign without breach of contract." Principal Capitano, however, testified that she recommended Respondent's termination because she believed that Respondent had violated the Code of Ethics. Specifically, Principal Capitano thought that Respondent put herself in a position where her relationship with a student was causing him duress. Following the events of March 12, 2018, C.V.'s parents arranged for C.V. to talk to a therapist. Thereafter, they observed improvements in his behavior. The content of the discussions C.V. had with his therapist was not conclusively established. Overall Nature of C.V. and Respondent's Relationship C.V.'s parents believed that C.V. saw Respondent as a girlfriend. However, they never thought that Respondent considered the relationship romantic or that anything sexual occurred. Some of Respondent's colleagues thought that her relationship with C.V. was uncomfortable or lacked appropriate boundaries. C.V.'s mother, viewed Respondent as a positive role model. In encouraging Respondent's relationship with C.V. in some respects, while attempting to establish more boundaries in others, C.V.'s parents were trying to balance the dramatic improvement in C.V.'s grades with what they believed to be C.V.'s unhealthy attachment to Respondent. Respondent believed that C.V. was very bright, but not applying himself in school. It was her desire to help him fulfill his potential. On a social level, she thought that he was a polite young man who shared hobbies with her husband and interacted well with her daughters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint and all charges contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER 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 15th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Board refused to re-employ Ms. Smith as a teacher's aide for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for a Complaint that she filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in January, 1983?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith is a graduate of a high school in the Gadsden County School system. Ms. Smith successfully completed a business education course at Gadsden Vo-Tech after receiving her high school diploma. Ms. Smith was rated qualified to work as a teacher's aide in the Gadsden County School system by the Central Administration office in 1982 and in 1984. Ms. Smith was employed as a teacher's aide at Gretna Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Gretna") during the 1982-1983 school year. She began her employment at Gretna in October, 1982. Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna during the first month of her employment was the Principal, Mr. Witt Campbell. Mr. Campbell left Gretna in November, 1982. For the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor was Rosa Barkley, who replaced Mr. Witt as Principal. Ms. Smith was pregnant during the 1982-1983 school year. On January 24, 1983, Ms. Smith became ill because of her pregnancy and had to go to the hospital. Ms. Smith did not return to Gretna during the remainder of the school year. On March 14, 1983, Ms. Barkley went to visit with Ms. Smith at her home. Ms. Smith told Ms. Barkley that she would return to work approximately two weeks after her baby was born. This meant that Ms. Smith would return after the start of the 1983-1984 school year. Ms. Barkley helped Ms. Smith request a leave of absence. This leave of absence was approved by the Board on March 29, 1983. In March, 1983, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a satisfactory rating on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form which was filed with the Board. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith the benefit of the doubt in completing this form because Ms. Smith had been under Ms. Barkley's supervision only from November, 1982 to January, 1983. Ms. Barkley also recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Smith be re-employed for the 1983-1984 school year. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Ms. Barkley asked the Superintendent to terminate Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley made this request because she wanted to have an aide that would start the school year in August, 1983 and not in November, 1983, when Ms. Smith planned to return. Ms. Barkley indicated in the letter that Ms. Smith had been absent because of her pregnancy. The Superintendent, Mr. Bishop, decided to grant Ms. Barkley's request. The decision to terminate Ms. Smith was made by the Board and not by Ms. Barkley. Although the Superintendent generally relies heavily on the recommendation of a principal, the decision to terminate Ms. Smith was that of the Board. The Board, based upon the information it was provided, should have told Ms. Barkley, that a leave of absence, and not termination, was the proper remedy to Ms. Barkley's problem. By letter dated July 27, 1983, Ms. Smith was terminated by the Board. Ms. Smith filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 19, 1984, alleging sex discrimination against Ms. Barkley. Upon the filing of the Complaint the Board investigated and decided that Ms. Smith should be rehired. The Board realized that it had caused the problem and not Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was offered the first teacher's aide position available. The position was at Chattahoochee Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Chattahoochee"). Ms. Smith accepted the position and began work at Chattahoochee in March, 1984. Ms. Smith worked with fourth grade Chapter 1 children (children who have been disadvantaged with regard to their educational opportunities). Ms. Martha Downs was her teacher. While at Chattahoochee, Ms. Smith had difficulty performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Her primary area of deficiency was in math. Mr. Corbin Scott, the Principal at Chattahoochee, attempted to help Ms. Smith by having Ms. Ella Ponder, a helping teacher, assist her. Although it was alleged that Ms. Smith was required to take a Criteria Reference Test normally taken by fourth graders, the evidence failed to support this allegation. Based upon Ms. Smith's poor performance, Mr. Corbin did not recommend that Ms. Smith be returned to Chattahoochee for the next school year. Although Ms. Smith admitted that she has some problems with math she failed to accept the fact that she was not adequately performing her duties as a teacher's aide. Instead, she believed that Mr. Corbin expected her to "teach" and that he was unfair when he did not recommend her continued employment at Chattahoochee for the next school year. Ms. Smith believed that the Complaint that she filed in January, 1984, affected the way that she was treated at Chattahoochee. This unfounded belief affected Ms. Smith's attitude while at Chattahoochee and later. The Board decided that the period of time that Ms. Smith was employed at Chattahoochee (March, 1984 to June, 1984) was too short. Therefore, in an effort to be fair with Ms. Smith and to settle the dispute with Ms. Smith, the Board decided to place Ms. Smith in another teacher's aide position for the 1984- 1985 school year. During the Summer of 1984, Ms. Smith and the Board settled the Complaint which Ms. Smith had filed in January, 1984. Pursuant to this settlement, Ms. Smith dismissed her Complaint for back-pay and her re-employment at Gretna. Ms. Smith was employed at Gretna during the 1984- 1985 school year as a teacher's aide pursuant to the settlement. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Smith's immediate supervisor at Gretna, was not consulted before the Board decided to return Ms. Smith to Gretna. Principals of schools are not consulted by the Board before employees are assigned to their schools. Although Ms. Smith agreed to return to Gretna as part of the settlement of her Complaint against the Board, she believed that Ms. Barkley would not treat her properly. This belief, which was unfounded, affected Ms. Smith's attitude toward Ms. Barkley and her job during the 1984-1985 school year. Ms. Smith was assigned to assist two teachers for most of the 1984- 1985 school year at Gretna: Ms. Corine D. Palmer and Ms. Charlotte Price. Neither Ms. Palmer nor Ms. Price talked to Ms. Smith about problems which they perceived in Ms. Smith's performance. Ms. Price's attitude was that she was there to teach students and, therefore, she did not want to be bothered with Ms. Smith. Ms. Palmer's attitude was to work around Ms. Smith; she gave up trying to use Ms. Smith effectively because of Ms. Smith's lack of effort. Both ladies essentially stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the problem since neither of them were responsible for evaluating Ms. Smith. Employees at Gretna were required to sign in and sign out on a sheet provided for them at the administrative office of the school. During the school year Ms. Smith was late arriving at school a total of fifteen times. Most of those times she was late more than a few minutes. She was late seven times during 1984 and eight times in 1985. At least three other teachers' aides (Inez Morris, Ida Miller and Mary Wright) were late to school more often than Ms. Smith. While Ms. Smith received an unsatisfactory rating for punctuality for the school year, the other three aides received a satisfactory rating. Many of the times that the other three aides were late, they were late only a few minutes. When they were late more than a few minutes, they notified Ms. Barkley or someone else at Gretna that they would be late, and indicated why. Ms. Smith, on the other hand, did not always notify Ms. Barkley or anyone else that she would be late, or indicate why she was late until she was asked. During the first week of the 1984-1985 school year (August 20-24, 1984), Ms. Smith was late three times. Ms. Smith rode to school with another employee who was late getting to school. On August 27, 1984, Ms. Barkley discussed Ms. Smith's lateness with her and gave her a letter indicating that she was expected to be at school at 8:05 a.m. Ms. Smith was late once during each of the next three weeks. She corrected the problem, however, by arranging to ride with someone else. After the week of September 10-14, 1984, Ms. Smith was late only one other time during 1984. During 1985, Ms. Smith was late at least once a week during seven of the eleven weeks ending March 15, 1985. In addition to being late reporting to school, Ms. Smith was late going to her assigned classroom after arriving at school and after lunch. Ms. Smith was required to be in her morning class no later than 8:15 a.m. Her lateness was reported by Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price and was also noted by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was in the employee lounge on many occasions when she should have been in a class. On October 15, 1984, Ms. Barkley spoke with all of the aides about being in the lounge in the morning when they should be in their classes. Despite Ms. Barkley's comments, that afternoon Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she should not have been, and she continued to be late to her assigned classroom in the mornings. Ms. Palmer and Ms. Price told Ms. Barkley that Ms. Smith was late to class. Both of them tended to do without her and to avoid any effort to try to correct the problem. On February 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a letter that indicated that Ms. Smith was in the lounge when she was not supposed to be. A similar letter was given to Ida Miller and Dorothy Smith. Ms. Miller and Ms. Dorothy Smith corrected the problem. Ms. Smith did not. Ms. Barkley rated Ms. Smith's attendance as "unsatisfactory". This rating was not based upon the number of days that she was absent. It was based upon the number of times that Ms. Smith was not in her assigned classroom. Ms. Barkley kept a notebook in which she noted the dates of some events involving employees' actions. She has kept these notes since she became a principal. Most of the notes concerning Ms. Smith did not give the reason for absences or lateness. Ms. Smith did not, however, always report the reason for her lateness. Most of the observations involved lateness and absences. The notes concerning Ms. Smith were provided to the Board because she was requested to provide any documentation concerning Ms. Smith. She did not know where her other notes were. Ms. Barkley noted the conference she had with Ms. Smith on August 27, 1984. In this note, she referred to Ms. Smith as "Ms. Attitude." This notation and a later notation that Ms. Smith was in the lounge one day "chomping" show a lack of judgment by Ms. Barkley in the manner that Ms. Barkley referred to Ms. Smith. This lack of judgment is not sufficient, however, to prove that Ms. Barkley terminated Ms. Smith at the end of the 1984-1985 school year in retaliation for the Complaint filed by Ms. Smith in 1983. Ms. Barkley's explanation for these notations is rejected. Ms. Barkley talked to teachers and other aides about Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley did not, however, limit her inquiries to Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley was responsible for the supervision of all of the employees at Gretna. She was very active in managing her school. She observed her employees in the halls of the school, in the lounge and in the classroom. She did not single out Ms. Smith. Ms. Barkley asked teachers and other aides about all employees and she checked up on all her employees. Ms. Smith was observed in class by Ms. Barkley. Ms. Smith was seen giving wrong answers and performing sloppy work. When Ms. Barkley talked to Ms. Smith about some of her problems, Ms. Smith's attitude was defensive. She did not believe that she had any problems and believed that Ms. Barkley was being unfair to her. She therefore did not indicate that she agreed with Ms. Barkley or that she would make any efforts to correct her problems when Ms. Barkley spoke to her about her problems. Ms. Price indicated that Ms. Smith had evidenced a poor attitude about her performance with her also. On March 15, 1985, Ms. Barkley met with Ms. Smith and informed her that she would not be recommended for employment during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley sent a letter to the Board dated March 15, 1985, recommending that Ms. Smith not be re-employed during the 1985-1986 school year. Ms. Barkley also rated Ms. Smith "unsatisfactory" on five characteristics listed on a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form dated March 8, 1985. This form was signed by Ms. Smith on March 15, 1985. Ms. Smith was given an unsatisfactory rating for utilization of time, compliance with school and district policies, attendance, punctuality and leadership. This evaluation was similar to the evaluation given Ms. Smith by Mr. Corbin. Ms. Barkley, Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer were given a Personal Reference Form for Teacher Aide Applicants by Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith told Ms. Price and Ms. Palmer that the forms were going to be used by her to apply for a job outside of its school system. Although both teachers had misgivings about Ms. Smith's ability and did not want her back as a teacher's aide, they both liked her personally and wanted to help her find a job. They also wanted to avoid any conflict with Ms. Smith. Therefore, even though they should have known better, they completed the forms giving Ms. Smith affair rating and indicating that they would employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley completed the form given to her by Ms. Smith on April 30, 1985. She gave her a poor rating and indicated that she would not employ her as a teacher's aide. Ms. Barkley had completed a Gadsden County Non-instructional Personnel Assessment form when Ms. Smith left Gretna in 1983. Ms. Barkley gave Ms. Smith a favorable evaluation. She did so, however, because Ms. Smith had only worked at Gretna during the 1982-1983 school year for approximately four months and Ms. Barkley had only been there during three of those months. Therefore, Ms. Barkley did not believe it would be fair to give Ms. Smith an unfavorable evaluation. The Board did not refuse to re-employ Ms. Smith for the 1985-1986 school year in retaliation for any dispute between Ms. Smith and Ms. Barkley or any other person. Ms. Smith was not re-employed because she lacked the necessary job skills to work as a teacher's aide and had failed to perform adequately. On or about July 15, 1985, Ms. Smith filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that the Board had discriminated against her on the basis of retaliation. The Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a "Determination: No Cause" on May 12, 1987. Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Rehearing. On or about July 13, 1987, the Executive Director entered a "Redetermination: No Cause." Ms. Smith filed a Petition for Relief. The Florida Commission on Human Relations forwarded the Petition the Division of Administrative Hearings by order dated August 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Smith's Petition for Relief be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 9th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 Irrelevant. 4-5 3. 6-7 22. 8 4. 9 23. 10 5. 11 12. The date of termination was July 27, 1983. 12 10. 13-14 13. 15 20-22. 16 10. 17 8. 18 9. 19 22. 20 23. 21 11. The evidence failed to prove that the Board acted solely on the recommendation of Ms. Barkley. 22 25. 23 26. 24 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 25-26 27. 27 28. 28 While Ms. Smith may have corrected the "ride problem" she continued to be late during the 1984-1985 school year. 29-31 27. 32-33 33. 34-36 Although these proposed findings of fact are correct they are irrelevant. 37 41. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 40 Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 44 35. 45-46 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although it is true that Ms. Smith did improve her punctuality arriving at Gretna during 1984 she failed to continue to arrive on time during the rest of the school year. See 28. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 45. 2 21. 3 10 and 11. 4 14. 5 16. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 16. 7 16-18. 8 20 and 22. 9-10 37. 11 41. 12 42. 13 28 and 33. 14 28-29 and 33. 15 45. COPIES FURNISHED TO: EDWARD J. GRUNEWALD, ESQUIRE LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC. 400 NORTH MADISON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, ESQUIRE 211 EAST JEFFERSON STREET QUINCY, FLORIDA 32351 DONALD A. GRIFFIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925 DANA BAIRD GENERAL COUNSEL 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact Respondent left Cuba with her parents in 1981. She resumed school in Spain and thereafter immigrated to the United States. She has had difficulty in adjusting here, especially to the language change. She is currently a 7th grade student at West Miami Junior High School. She is failing most of her subjects and has an absentee rate (unexcused) of nearly 50 percent. She has been involved in fights at school on two occasions during the current academic year. School officials have met with her parents, and have counseled Respondent in an effort to assist her. These efforts have been unsuccessful. Recently, her parents have taken her to the "Family and Adolescent Development Center" where she is apparently receiving therapeutic services. A late-filed exhibit on her current, diagnosis (Respondent's Exhibit 1) was to be furnished by Respondent's therapist. However, this document was not filed. Therefore, the results of the therapeutic referral were not established.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assigning Respondent to its Educational Alternative Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mr. Reinaldo Sanchez 6797 South West 21st Street Miami, Florida 33155 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Board is responsible for the operation of the public schools within the Dade County School District. Teachers assigned to the various schools are recommended to the Superintendent for employment or contract renewal by their respective principals. The Superintendent, in turn, presents a recommendation regarding the teacher's employment to the Board. At all times material to the disputed facts of this case, Respondent was a teacher employed by the Board and assigned to a public school within the district. Teachers employed by the Board are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system records deficiencies which may have been observed during the evaluation review and provides a prescription (a plan) for performance improvement. At all times material to this case, the TADS method was employed to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent began employment with the Dade County public schools in September, 1961, and taught until February 13, 1963. She returned to teaching in March, 1982, and was employed pursuant to a professional service contract. During the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was assigned to a second grade class at Ojus Elementary School (Ojus). Jeanne Friedman was the principal at Ojus and was primarily responsible for Respondent's TADS evaluation. At the conclusion of the 1986-87 school year, Respondent was given an annual evaluation. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in four of the seven areas of evaluation. Specifically, Respondent was found to be in need of remediation in the following categories: knowledge of the subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relations. A prescription was devised to assist Respondent improve in the areas deemed to be deficient, and she was informed that should she not improve in the areas noted by the end of the next year, that she would not be recommended for employment for the 1988-89 school year. The evaluation for the 1986-87 school year was predicated on observations which had been conducted on December 5, 1986, January 22, 1987, and March 2, 1987. On December 5, 1986, Jeanne Friedman conducted a TADS evaluation of the Respondent. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on December 11, 1986, to review the evaluation and to assist in the implementation of the prescription. On December 18, 1986, a conference for the record was held to address the Respondent's performance and her future employment status. At this meeting, Respondent was reminded of the suggestions given to correct the deficiencies noted in the evaluation conducted December 5, 1986. Those deficiencies were related to Respondent's preparation and planning. On January 22, 1987, Respondent was evaluated in follow-up to the December review. This observation was discussed with the Respondent on January 23, 1987. Respondent's prescription for the deficiencies noted in this evaluation required corrections to be implemented by February 2, 1987. The deficiencies were in the area of preparation and planning. On March 2, 1987, Respondent was evaluated by Jeanne Friedman and Emilio Fox. The evaluations were performed during the same class period, language arts, but the evaluators did not communicate with one another nor compare their notes regarding Respondent's performance. Both evaluators found the Respondent to be deficient in three of the areas of evaluation: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and techniques of instruction. Respondent had failed to follow the lesson plan book for the entire class time, had failed to plan the activity which was conducted, wrote several erroneous items on the class board, and did not explain the nature of the lesson to the class. Several of Respondent's errors were brought to her attention by the students (second graders). Margaret Roderick and Leeomia Kelly evaluated Respondent on April 27, 1987. These TADS assessments found Respondent deficient in the areas of knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On May 29, 1987, a conference for the record was held regarding Respondent's poor performance year. At that time, Respondent was advised that if she failed to remediate the areas noted to be deficient by the end of the 1987-88 school year, she would not be recommended for continued employment. At her request, Respondent was assigned to a kindergarten class at Ojus for the 1987-88 school year. Approximately 30 students were initially enrolled in Respondent's section. A second kindergarten section was taught by Ms. Kramer. A TADS evaluation conducted by Leeomia Kelly on September 17, 1987, found Respondent to be acceptable in all categories reviewed. After this evaluation, several parents wrote to Ms. Friedman asking that their children be moved from Respondent's class to Ms. Kramer's section. The number of students enrolled in Respondent's class dropped to approximately 23. On October 22, 1987, Jeanne Friedman conducted an observation of the Respondent's class. This evaluation found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. Ms. Friedman met with Respondent on October 23, 1987, to go over the prescription for improvement and outlined a time deadline for each suggested resource. A second evaluation conducted on November 30, 1987, also found the Respondent deficient in the area of classroom management. On December 11, 1987, a conference for the record was conducted to review Respondent's performance. Respondent was reminded that a failure to correct deficient areas would result in termination of employment. Doretha Mingo and Leeomia Kelly conducted evaluations of Respondent on March 1, 1988. These evaluators found Respondent deficient in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. On March 9, 1988, a conference for the record was held to summarize Respondent's work performance. At that time Respondent was given an annual evaluation which found her to be unacceptable in the following areas of performance: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher- student relationships. Respondent was notified at this conference that the principal would be recommending nonrenewal of the employment contract. Respondent was observed on April 13, 1988, by Ms. Friedman and Michael Conte. Both evaluators found Respondent to be deficient in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction. In each of the TADS reviews given to Respondent, conclusions of deficiency were based upon objective observations made during the class period. For example, students found to be off task were observed to be disregarding Respondent's instructions and findings of inadequate planning were based upon inadequacies found in Respondent's plan book (not describing the lesson taught or incompletely stating the subject matter). In each instance, Respondent was given a prescription as to how to correct the noted deficiency. Respondent was given copies of the evaluations at the time they were reviewed with her. Further, Respondent was given copies of the memoranda kept regarding the conferences for the record. Resources were offered to Respondent to assist her to make the corrections required. On April 25, 1988, Respondent was notified that the subject of her continued employment would be raised at the Board meeting to be conducted April 27, 1988. Respondent was advised that the Superintendent intended to recommend nonrenewal of Respondent's contract which, if accepted, would preclude future employment. This letter was written by Patrick Gray, Executive Assistant Superintendent. The Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1988-89 school year. On April 28, 1988, Patrick Gray wrote to Respondent to advise her of the Board's action. In each of the years for which she received unacceptable evaluations, Respondent's students performed satisfactorily on school-administered standardized tests. Such tests were not, however, gauged to measure the subject matter which Respondent had been responsible for teaching in those years. During the 1987-88 school year Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1986-87 school year. Respondent repeatedly failed to perform the duties which were expected of her despite many attempts to assist her with any remediation needed. Further, by her failure to remediate in the areas of classroom management and techniques of instruction, Respondent failed to communicate with her students to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2798 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. The first 3 sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 5 through 12 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 13 are accepted. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant commentary. Paragraphs 14 through 19 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "sometime in February, 1988," and the following qualification, paragraph 20 is accepted. The opinions expressed by the parents were based upon the observations made and not necessarily the comment of their children. The parents drew the conclusions based upon their observation but no conclusion is reached by the undersigned as to the accuracy of those conclusions. It will suffice for the purposes herein that the-parents believed their conclusions to be correct. No time was clearly established for the parental comments regarding Respondent's ability or performance. Paragraph 21 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 22, with the following qualification, it is accepted. The opinion expressed by Conte that students "were not comprehending what they were doing or what they were supposed to be doing ..." Such comments have not been considered as Mr. Cote's ability to read the minds of the children. Rather, such comments have been read to more accurately mean: based upon his experience and expertise, "the students did not appear to comprehend, etc." The last sentence of paragraph 22 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 23 through 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant, argument, conclusions of law or comment not appropriate for a finding of fact. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AS SET FORTH IN THE AMENDED RECOMMENDED ORDER (HAVING PRESUMED IT SUPERSEDED THE EARLIER FILED RECOMMENDED ORDER): Paragraph 1 is accepted as to Respondent's age but the balance is rejected as unsupported by the record. The weight of the evidence established Respondent has not taught for 32 years. She has been a teacher by profession that long but not working all that time. Paragraphs 2-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law not accurate under the facts of this case. Paragraph 6 is accepted to the extent the subject matter is qualified and addressed in finding of fact paragraph 22, otherwise is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez 2780 Galloway Road Superintendent Miami, Florida 33165 School Board of Dade County 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue William DuFresne Miami, Florida 33132 DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 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
Findings Of Fact This action is brought by the School Board of Bay County, Florida, against Willie L. Brown, calling for Brown's dismissal as an employee of the Bay County School System. This request for dismissal follows the March 17, 1981, suspension of Brown by action of Pete Holman, Superintendent of the Bay County School System. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. The basis for this action on the part of the Petitioner is as stated in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order. After being informed of the Petitioner's intent to dismiss him as an employee, the Respondent requested a formal hearing in this cause and the School Board, on June 4, 1981, asked the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings to assign a Hearing Officer to conduct a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. A Hearing Officer was assigned and the hearing was held on July 10 and 14, 1981. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 385083, valid through June 1985, and covering the areas of elementary education, early childhood education and administration/supervision. At all times pertinent to this matter, the Respondent, Willie L. Brown, was employed by the Bay County School Board as a teacher at the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center. In the school year 1980-81 a local civic club in Panama City, Florida, held an oratorical contest for the benefit of students in the Bay County School System. Among the participants in that contest were students from the A. D. Harris Sixth Grade Center where the Respondent taught. Brown acted in the capacity as advisor to those students and met with the students from the Harris Center on several occasions to aid the students in the preparation of their speeches, and in the presentation of those speeches. One of the students participating in the oratorical contest was Steve William Rudd, a minor. Rudd was not a student in Brown's regular academic classes. The involvement Rudd had with Brown prior to the oratorical contest was merely to the extent of knowing that Brown was a teacher at Harris. On the first occasion of Rudd's participation with Brown in the speech contest, Brown met with Rudd and other students in the auditorium at the school and listened to their speeches and critiqued their presentation. The next occasion in which Brown took part in the preparation of the students for the oratorical contest occurred in Brown's homeroom, at which time the general nature of the relationship between Brown and the students was as occurred at the auditorium session. On the third occasion in which the Respondent met with Rudd, there was also in attendance a second student, William Arnold Stevenson. This session was held in the classroom of another teacher. On that occasion Stevenson was allowed to present his speech while Brown listened and Rudd waited for his turn. When Stevenson had concluded his speech, he left the room leaving Brown and Rudd alone. Rudd then commenced his speech standing at the front of the room, and he concluded that presentation while Brown moved around the room listening to the speech. Brown then made certain suggestions to Rudd about correcting Rudd's speech presentation and then asked Rudd to move to the back of the classroom. Rudd complied with that request. Rudd then began to give his speech again while standing at the back of the room in the area of a desk. At this time the Respondent was moving around the room and eventually approached Rudd. At that point, Brown placed his folded arms on the back of Rudd at Rudd's shoulder level. At this juncture, Rudd was facing the front of the classroom and the Respondent was directly behind him. The front of Brown's body was touching the back of Rudd's person. Brown remained in this position until Rudd had concluded his speech. During this interval, Brown made no comment. The interval for this occurrence was approximately two or three minutes. After Rudd had presented his speech for the second time, the Respondent went and took a seat in a chair in the back of the classroom. The Respondent then instructed the student to sit on the Respondent's lap. Rudd complied and seated himself on the Respondent's leg, in the area of the Respondent's knee. The Respondent then gestured with his hand, pointing in the direction of the Respondent's groin area, meaning the genital area, and said to the student, "sit right here." The Respondent then pulled the student toward his body and at that time the student was seated on the Respondent's genital area with his back against the Respondent's chest. No comment was made during this part of the episode, which lasted a short time. Brown then moved Rudd back away from his body into the original location near his knee. He then took the student's right hand and with the student's hands stroked Brown's genital area. This maneuver with the student's hand was a momentary event. While the student was seated on the Respondent's lap, he was concerned for his welfare and in particular worried about the door which had been locked by the Respondent. The student thought that the door was locked such that he, the student, could not exit. In fact, the door was locked barring entry from persons outside the room. Brown released Rudd's hand and told Rudd that he could get out and that Brown was sorry for what had occurred. He told the student this several times, once when the student got up, once when the student was midway in the classroom approaching the door, and once when the student got to the door. On the same day as the event transpired, Rudd reported the incident to the Principal at Harris Center, one James Griffin. Griffin then confronted the Respondent with the student's allegations by asking Brown if the story that Rudd had told about the incident was true. Brown responded, "Yes, it is." When Griffin asked him why he did it, Brown said, "I don't know." Griffin then commented to Brown that the matter was a very serious offense and that Brown might be suspended or dismissed from the school system, to which Brown replied, "I know this." Griffin then asked Brown if he was prepared to face the consequences, and Brown replied, "Yes, I guess I am." Since the time of the event, some of the other students in the sixth grade center have referred to Rudd as a "gay boy," meaning that Rudd was a homosexual, due to his circumstance with Brown and that Rudd "felt Mr. Brown off," meaning that Rudd had manipulated the Respondent's penis. Rudd had been teased about the event by other students, and the students did not talk to him. Rudd has felt insecure in his home and has desired to sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag with the lights on because of this event with the Respondent. Rudd has felt as if someone were watching him even in his home, in particular that the person was the Respondent. The student has also felt that he did not wish to sleep by a window and has chosen to sleep in the middle of the room, and at times has slept on a couch in the living room of his home. The aforementioned treatment of the student by other children in the sixth grade center led Rudd's parents to change his bus transportation to avoid a confrontation with the children. Nonetheless, it has not been necessary for the student to seek psychiatric assistance and he is recovering from the trauma of the subject occurrence. In spite of attempts by the school authorities to deter publication of this incident, students, teachers, parents, staff and other persons within the community have learned of the incident and principal Griffin is of the persuasion that there would be dissension with teachers, parents and students should Brown be allowed back as an instructor in the school. Griffin feels that there would be a lack of trust in that Brown has lost his effectiveness as an instructor. Likewise, Bay County Superintendent Holman who is familiar with the case facts, is of the persuasion that Brown's effectiveness as a teacher in Bay County has been seriously reduced. Nothing offered in defense rebuts the opinion of these educators. Following the incident, a meeting was held on March 6, 1981, between the Respondent and Pete Holman, Superintendent of Schools in Bay County, Florida, with the Principal Griffin being in attendance. At that time Brown again admitted that the incident had occurred and subsequent to this meeting Brown was suspended from his teaching duties in the Bay County system. There ensued an administrative complaint brought by Ralph B. Turlington as Commissioner of Education in the State of Florida, and the Bay County School Board took action to discharge the Respondent as an employee.
