The Issue Whether Respondent Heath Currier committed the violations alleged in the Final Notice of Discipline, and if so, the appropriate discipline that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The fire chief, on behalf of the City of Cape Coral Fire Department, is responsible for terminating the employment of employees of the fire department. At all times relevant to the this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a firefighter. The employment position that Respondent occupies is included in the positions covered by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Cape Coral Professional Fire Fighters Local 2424 of The International Association of Fire Fighters (Union). Petitioner has the authority to monitor and regulate its employees in accordance with the laws and rules of the State of Florida, the City of Cape Coral Charter, ordinances and rules promulgated thereunder, and the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Union. According to the Joint Pre-Hearing Statement, “Article 7(d)(2) of the union contract states that employees are entitled to Notice of Intended Discipline” and, according to Respondent, “Heath Currier wasn’t advised that his employment was being terminated until after the fire chief’s pre-disciplinary hearing.” The referenced article of the union contract was not offered into evidence. However, chapter 2, division 7 of the City of Cape Coral Ordinances (division 7), was received into evidence and this ordinance sets forth Respondent’s procedural disciplinary notice rights. Section 2-31.4(b) of division 7 provides in part that “[w]hen disciplinary action against an employee with regular status is contemplated by the city, the department head shall provide the employee with written notice of the intended action(s).” Section 2-31.4(c)(6) provides further that “[i]n no event shall the discipline imposed be greater than that specified in the notice of proposed disciplinary action.” On or about December 22, 2015, Respondent received a notice of proposed disciplinary action from Petitioner which informed him that the fire chief was considering disciplinary action including, but not limited to, “written reprimand, suspension, demotion, and/or termination of employment with the City.” Following the issuance of the notice of proposed disciplinary action, an investigation was conducted which resulted in the issuance of a final notice of disciplinary action which advised Respondent that his employment with the City of Cape Coral was being terminated “effectively immediately.” The notice of proposed disciplinary action provided Respondent with notice that termination of his employment with the City of Cape Coral was a possible consequence resulting from his alleged misconduct, and the notice was issued in accordance with the requirements of division 7. Respondent, at the time of the occurrences that provide the basis for the instant action, was a seven-year member of the Cape Coral Fire Department, and, during all times relevant hereto, worked primarily in the department’s division of operations. The fire department’s division of operations is divided into two battalions, “fire north” and “fire south.” Respondent was assigned to the fire south division. The division of professional standards is another division within the fire department, and, during all times relevant hereto, was under the supervision of then special operations battalion chief Timothy Clark. Housed within the fire department’s division of professional standards is the department’s special operations unit, which includes the department’s dive/rescue team. Mr. Clark, in his capacity as battalion chief for special operations, had the authority to direct fire department employees in matters related to dive/rescue operations. To become a member of the dive/rescue team, a firefighter must go through a competitive process that, if successfully completed, results in the firefighter receiving additional pay in the form of a wage supplement. Members of the dive/rescue team, according to Mr. Clark, must be proficient in the operation of dive-related equipment to the point of knowing the equipment “inside and out, upside down, sideways, backwards, eyes closed, [and] blindfolded.” Respondent is a member of the department’s dive/rescue team. At some point (the exact date is not clear in the record), Respondent was assigned to the fire station where the dive/rescue team is located. The dive/rescue team is under the direct supervision of Ryan Corlew. The dive/rescue team has regular training exercises which require members of the team to perform certain tasks so as to maintain operational efficiency. Mr. Corlew, when working with Respondent, determined that Respondent’s knowledge of the operational aspects of some of the dive/rescue equipment was deficient and in need of remediation. Special operations battalion chief Clark was informed of Respondent’s problems with the dive/rescue equipment, and armed with this information, met with Respondent to discuss the issue. Mr. Clark explained to Respondent that he was displeased that Respondent was not as proficient with the dive/rescue equipment as he should be, and that he was placing Respondent on a non-punitive three-week remedial training program. Mr. Clark “instructed [Respondent] at that time to work with the other guys in [his] station, the lieutenant, the engineer, the firefighters, all the divers there, to work with them and train with them and have them teach [you] so that when I come back in three weeks, [you will know] this stuff inside out . . . backwards . . . [and] blindfolded.” Respondent explained that after he was instructed by Mr. Clark to work with the other guys at his station, he repeatedly asked (“morning, noon, and evening”) his lieutenant, Mr. Corlew, for training, and each time he was refused. According to Mr. Corlew, Respondent, while at the dinner table one night, asked if Mr. Corlew could personally train him, and Mr. Corlew, as Respondent’s supervisor, told Respondent to first work with firefighters Stalions and Johnson, both of whom are extremely knowledgeable about the workings of the dive equipment. Mr. Corlew went on to advise Respondent that he would personally work with him once firefighters Stalions and Johnson raised Respondent’s proficiency with the equipment to an acceptable level. Firefighter Stalions testified that during this same discussion at the dinner table, he offered to train Respondent, but Respondent refused and said that he wanted to be trained instead by Mr. Corlew. Respondent testified that “[e]very single day [he] would take all of the dive equipment out of the compartments, disassemble it completely, reassemble it and do that at least twice a day.” In an attempt to corroborate this testimony, Respondent called Steven Jobe as a witness. Mr. Jobe testified that he “didn’t necessarily see [Respondent] putting [the dive equipment] together and taking it apart.” Although Mr. Clark told Respondent to be ready to demonstrate his proficiency three weeks from the time of their meeting, it was actually four weeks later when Mr. Clark again met with Respondent. During the follow-up meeting, Mr. Clark gave Respondent “a simple scenario that engine 2 had come back from a call, all the equipment was trashed and everything needed to be replaced.” According to Mr. Clark: I needed [Respondent] to go in the back room, get all the stuff together and assemble a dive setup, check it out and test it and make sure it was ready to go if a call came in. He fumbled through it. It took him a long time to put stuff together. He ultimately figured a couple things out throughout the process of elimination, but there was [sic] still some things that he had wrong. He had the weights, they weren’t properly in the BCs (undefined), which is a critical safety issue, because if you lose your weights on the call, it could cause you to bolt to the surface, which could cause injury to yourself or others. So by placing the weights improperly the way he did, to me was a huge [problem]. (Hearing transcript pg. 83). Mr. Clark went on to explain that “once we were all done, like I said, he had some issues and I knew--it was obvious that he hadn’t done what I instructed him to do[,] [s]o I asked him at the time who he had worked with over the course of that four weeks.” Mr. Clark explained that he asked Respondent who he had trained with during the four-week period because if the individuals that remediated Respondent were performing at or near the same level as Respondent, then Mr. Clark believed that he had a larger issue of operational preparedness that he needed to address by personally retraining all concerned. In response to Mr. Clark’s request for names, Respondent told Mr. Clark “the only people that I’ve had consistently with me are two firefighters that I’ve worked with,” named Johnson and Stalions. Soon after meeting with Mr. Clark, Respondent sent the following text message to firefighters Johnson and Stalions: Hey guys heads up, I just had my “non punative [sic] dive gear quiz” with [C]lark and I missed a few things. He asked who I had been working with and I reluctantly gave him your names after [C]orlew told him I never went to [M]edero for help. Not sure if there will be any fallout but I wanted to let you both know ahead of time. Mr. Johnson credibly testified that he was surprised to have received the referenced text message from Respondent given that he had never been asked to, nor had he ever provided any type of training to Respondent. Firefighter Stalions credibly testified that after receiving the text he spoke with Respondent and “told him I didn’t appreciate being pulled into it because training wise, I didn’t do any formal training with him and it kind of to me felt like he was looking for kind of some backup on it.” Firefighter Stalions went on to explain that he had never trained with Respondent, but certainly would have had he been asked. Because Respondent did not train with either firefighter Johnson or Stalions, Respondent lied to Mr. Clark when informing him that Respondent had trained with these individuals. Respondent’s poor performance on his remedial test, combined with the fact that not a single witness corroborated Respondent’s testimony of having disassembled and reassembled the dive equipment twice a day, every single day, makes incredible his testimony regarding self-directed remedial training. Respondent testified that he “did everything [he] thought [he] could do” to comply with Mr. Clark’s directions and recommendations. Respondent’s assertion is, however, belied by the evidence which demonstrates that Respondent did not train on the dive equipment with firefighters Madero and Johnson, and refused a direct offer from firefighter Stalions to assist Respondent with training. It was solely the fault of Respondent that he did not secure remedial training as directed by Mr. Clark.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ronald Miller, holds a Florida teaching certificate numbered 464113, covering the area of physical education. During the 1980-81 school year he was employed as a teacher of physical education at Miami Coral Park Senior High School in Miami, Florida. He was also hired that year by Miami Coral Park Senior High School to be an assistant basketball coach for the junior varsity basketball team and an assistant coach for the varsity football team. At the beginning of that school year, the head coach for the varsity basketball team, Mr. Edward Joyner, was delayed in his arrival at school. For this reason during the first three or four weeks of school, Mr. Miller was appointed to take Mr. Joyner's place in coaching the varsity basketball team as well. This was the first year of Mr. Miller's assignment as a full-time teacher. The Petitioners are, respectively, the School Board of Dade County, a public agency charged with the hiring, employment and regulation of the operations, activities and practices of teachers it employs to instruct students in the Dade County Public School System. The Education Practices Commission is an agency of the State of Florida within the Department of Education and is charged with the duty of licensing and regulating the licensure status, practice and practice standards of teachers in the State of Florida. During the 1980-81 school year, as in the recent past, Coral Park Senior High School had a club called the Cagerettes which assisted the school's junior varsity basketball and varsity basketball teams by helping to raise funds for different functions as well as to work with the coaching staff performing such services as taking statistics during games. Members of that group were selected from the student body after "tryouts" where the individual applicants were judged on their personality and participation. Cindy Castillo was the captain or president of club for the 1980-81 school year. This was her third consecutive year as a member of the club and her second year as its president. Cindy Castillo approached Mr. Miller shortly after he became employed and after the school year began and asked him to be the faculty sponsor for the club. He had had no previous experience as a club sponsor for any school, but based upon Miss Castillo's representations concerning his insignificant duties as club sponsor, he agreed to become the sponsor of the club. One of the initial witnesses called by the Petitioner was Mr. Doug Wycoff. Mr. Wycoff was an instructor in the English Department at times pertinent here to and also acted in the capacity of athletic business manager for Coral Park Senior High School. As athletic business manger, Mr. Wycoff was required to oversee the financial business and accounting for monies received by the athletic department. These duties included overseeing ticket sales, crowd control, personnel at athletic events, overseeing fund raising efforts and managing the money received therefrom and in general assisting the athletic director. Mr. Wycoff testified that the high school maintained its banking accounts with the Sun Bank. Any monies derived from fund raising activities should go to him as a member of the athletic office in charge of finance and then they would be deposited with the school treasurer. The treasurer typically makes deposits on a daily basis via the Wells Fargo Armored Express Company. At all times material to these proceedings the practice was to segregate all accounts with the bank so that each different sports activity and the personnel involved therein would have their own account and otherwise maintain constant accessibility to the account. Prior to the commencement of the 1980-81 school year, Mr. Wycoff gave general instructions to all faculty members involved with the athletic program regarding who to contact should they have any questions regarding their involvement with a fund raising activity and how to account for the money. Although it was the witnesses' opinion that the Respondent had been present at that meeting, the Respondent denied it and the record does not establish whether or not the Respondent was present at that particular meeting. A condition precedent to the establishment of any fund raising activity of the high school, or a club or a group operating under the auspices of the school, required that the sponsor of the group obtain approval from Mr. Wycoff. The school records reveal, through Mr. Wycoff's testimony, that there were only two functions which had previously been approved for the basketball team. One was a car wash held at the beginning of the year in question and the the second was an M & M candy sale which took place later during the spring of the 80-81 school year. The approval for the car wash was obtained from Mr. Wycoff by the Cagerette captain, Miss Castillo. Near the close of the 80-81 school year the school principal ultimately learned that other fund raising activities had been conducted for which substantial sums of money had been received, which had been unapproved fund raising activities. The generated proceeds were received and unaccounted for by the Respondent. The car wash took place on or about September 27, 1980. Mr. Wycoff issued to Miss Castillo one hundred tickets with a prestamped price of $1.50 on each ticket for sale of car washes. The car wash was a success and generated approximately $900 in gross proceeds Two hundred dollars of that (apparently checks) was turned over to Mr. Wycoff, the balance in cash was retained by the Respondent. The Respondent admitted receiving perhaps $200 to $300 within a few days after this event. The Respondent explained ;to Miss Castillo and the other students involved in the car wash activity, that the monies were going to be held by him for the benefit of the Cagerettes and the basketball team in a special account at a bank near his home. On October 4, 1980, a car wash was held by the Cagerettes with the help of the Respondent. Mr. Wycoff was not requested to approve this endeavor, nor were the funds raised therefrom ever accounted for to Mr. Wycoff or any other employee or official of the school. Approximately $256 was generated and the proceeds were placed in the Respondent's custody at his request. The Respondent admitted that with regard to this fund raising effort he received approximately $247. On approximately October 11, 1980, at the instance of the Respondent and without prior knowledge or approval from Mr. Wycoff, the Cagerettes and basketball players held a donut sale. The total proceeds of that sale approximated the sum of $900. Cynthia Castillo took $594 of that sum to pay the vendor of the donuts and the balance, in the approximate sum of $311, was turned over to the Respondent. The Respondent admitted that he received approximately $300 from that fund raising activity. A second donut sale was held a short time later, also not approved by Mr. Wycoff or any personnel in his office. Approximately $368 were generated from that venture which was initially given to Coach Joyner. The record in this proceeding does not reflect what became of that $368, but it was not included in the sum ultimately the subject of criminal proceedings against the Respondent. In the fall of 1980, the Respondent suggested and initiated a procedure whereby members of the Cagerettes would pay monthly dues. This was a practice that was followed with the dues set in their approximate amount of $2 per member per month. These dues were collected for approximately one month and the monies were turned over to the Respondent in the amount of between $30 and $40. The Respondent never accounted for this money. The Respondent also initiated a procedure whereby the members of the Cagerettes would take up donations from individual girls for "penny week." These donations were taken up in the form of pennies on Monday; nickels on Tuesday; dimes on Wednesday; quarters on Thursday; and dollars on Friday. This activity grossed approximately $43 which was turned over to the Respondent and never accounted for. The initiation of this program on his own by the Respondent without approval of any one in authority was in direct conflict with rules promulgated by the school. Prescribed receipt books were to have been obtained from Mr. Wycoff and used so as to avoid any accounting for the money. This was not done. The Respondent also conducted another fund raising project whereby he solicited donations from students of $1 each for the purchase of athletic socks. At least one student made such a donation, but no socks were purchased. Mr. Wycoff established that no such collection project came to his knowledge and that the athletic department purchases and provides socks for its junior varsity teams at no cost to its members, thus the alleged need for donations to purchase athletic socks was false. During the course of the the 1980-81 school year, both the Respondent and his fellow coach and colleague, Mr. Joyner, made several attempts to have a banquet in honor of the basketball team and Cagerettes. Because of the lack of financing, the banquet never came to fruition. This was because certain funds raised by the above-mentioned fund raising projects during the year were unaccounted for by the Respondent, thus the banquet was severely under-financed. Additionally, several students paid to Mr. Miller at least $10 per banquet ticket for anticipated attendance of themselves and their respective guests. When the banquet was finally cancelled, the Respondent did not return their ticket purchase money. Mr. Lopez established that he was a student at that time and a member of the varsity basketball team. He purchased three tickets at $10 each, payable in cash, and was never refunded when the banquet was cancelled. JoAnn Oropesa paid the Respondent cash for banquet tickets, but was never refunded her money. She made demand on the Respondent for her money and the Respondent informed her that he would make a refund by check in the mail at the end of the school year. He failed to do so. During the school year the Cagerettes and the basketball team agreed with Coach Joyner to have a skating party at a neighboring commercial skating rink. In order to fund this event, the students involved agreed to sell tickets at the price of $3 per ticket. Mr. Wycoff was not advised of this money raising effort either and never received any money for an accounting, therefor, from either Respondent or Coach Joyner. JoAnn Oropesa sold all ten tickets assigned to her at $3 per ticket. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the monies from that fund raising activity, representing that the money would be used for the banquet in lieu of the skating event which was cancelled, Ultimately, these monies were never returned to JoAnn Oropesa or other students purchasing tickets. Manuel Martinez purchased tickets for the skating party and never had a refund, being merely told by the Respondent to "wait." The same student, Manuel Martinez, established that the Respondent solicited members of his class on more than one occasion to make contributions to a touring gospel singing group of which he was a member and that in consideration for this donation a student could receive an "A" for a test or make-up work. The Respondent also offered that "detentions" or "make-up requirements" could be taken off a student's record, for any of the classes in which the student was enrolled with the Respondent, in return for such donations. The testimony of Manuel Martinez was corroborated by Raphael Lopez, another student of the Respondent's, who established that the Respondent solicited students for contributions to his gospel group in return for enhancement of their grades. Marilyn Munne observed the Respondent soliciting students for contributions to his gospel group in consideration for which he would have a detention "dropped off" which would automatically result in a better grade. The Respondent ultimately proved unable to account for the proceeds of the money generated by the various fund raising projects outlined above and caused resulting concern to the various witnesses testifying on behalf of the Petitioners. Miss Castillo estimated that at least $1,700 had been placed in the Respondent's custody, exclusive of the $368 which she had given to Coach Joyner and which was apparently not accounted for either. Even by the Respondent's own admission he received at least between $900 and $1,100 from these fund raising projects that school year. The testimony of Miss Castillo and other witnesses establishes that the Respondent represented that those monies were to held in a special account for the benefit of the Cagerettes and the basketball team. The Respondent by his own admission acknowledged that he told Miss Castillo that he would "possibly" place the monies in such an account. The Respondent did not have a bank account and did not customarily maintain one. He testified that he maintained a "strong box" used as a depository within his own home. The Respondent testified that he placed the subject money in a green plastic zippered bag (Respondent's Exhibit A) up until the time it was supposedly removed by persons unknown who, according to the Respondent, stole his car on or about February 8, 1981. The Respondent testified that he was about to go spend the night with a friend and put the subject zippered plastic bag or case into his car, went back into the house to get some more belongings and the car was stolen while he was inside. The car was not recovered until some days later and the money was gone, although the plastic bag remained in or returned to the Respondent's possession and was made Exhibit A in this proceeding. The Respondent did not demonstrate that any efforts were made to replace the money prior to his being prosecuted for its disappearance. He did not, for instance, establish that he made any effort to file a claim against his automobile insurance carrier in order to see that the students were recompensed. Ultimately, the State Attorney's Office for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, filed a one count felony Information charging the Respondent with grand theft. The victim in that case was alleged to be the Petitioner's chief witness, Miss Cynthia Castillo. The Respondent, in that criminal proceeding, never went to trial, offering instead to enter into an agreement with the State Attorney to go into the "pre-trial intervention program" which is apparently a sort of probationary status coupled with a court enforced reimbursement of at least $1,700 to the Dade County School Board. The entire scenario described above concerning the fund raising efforts, diversion of the funds generated by them and the Respondent's ultimate refusal or at least inability to account for the whereabouts of those funds and his ultimate criminal prosecution for diversions of the funds became a matter of knowledge of a number of students and parents at the school as well as Mr. Wycoff, Desmond Patrick Gray and other members of the Dade County School Board's administrative staff. It should be noted that although no conviction has been entered against the Respondent in the criminal proceedings referred to above, it has been established without question that he took the cash portions of the funds generated by the various above-described fund raising efforts into his possession, failed to properly account for them, failed to place them in a bank account and failed to deliver them over to Mr. Wycoff or other responsible authorities. He exhibited adequate knowledge of whom he should have delivered the funds to because he only retained the cash portions of the monies generated by each fund raising effort, turning over the non-fungible checks to those entitled to them.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That with regard to case No. 81-2115, the petition of the School Board of Dade County against Ronald Miller, the Respondent, Ronald Miller, be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County and forfeit all back pay. It is, further RECOMMENDED: With regard to case No. 82-1234, the petition of the Education Practices Commission, Department of Education, Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner against Ronald Miller, that Ronald Miller have his Florida teaching certificate No. 464113 permanently revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Attorney for School Board 3050 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33137 Craig Wilson, Esquire Attorney for Education Practices Commission 315 West Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sarah Lea Tobocman, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Leonard M. Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Donald L. Griesheimer, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (SCHOOL BOARD) ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-2115 RONALD MILLER, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The School Board has employed Respondent for approximately 15 years as a school security monitor. As such, at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a non- probationary “educational support employee” within the meaning of Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes, whose employment can be terminated for reasons stated in the applicable collective bargaining agreement, which is the contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (the CBA). Article XXI, Section 3.D of the CBA provides that educational support personnel can be terminated for “just cause.” The term “just cause” is defined by that provision of the CBA as follows: . . . Just cause includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule [Florida Administrative Code Rule] 6B-4.009. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was a school security monitor assigned to the Lawrence Center. Prior to that assignment, Respondent had been assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School (Beach High School). While at Beach High School, there was a probable cause finding that Respondent had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a high school student who was over 18 years of age. As a result, Respondent’s employment was suspended without pay for a period of 30 days. Respondent accepted the 30-day suspension and agreed not to appeal. Ms. Durden began working as a Data Input Specialist at the Lawrence Center in May of 2008. Shortly after her arrival, Respondent asked Ms. Durden (then known as Ms. Williams), who was on her way to lunch, to bring him back lunch. The request, which Ms. Durden denied, caused her to feel uncomfortable. Thereafter, Respondent came to come to Ms. Durden’s work area on several occasions and asked her for the mints that she kept on her desk. Ms. Durden believed that Respondent was leering at her. Ms. Durden clearly disliked Respondent and felt uncomfortable in his presence. On June 3, 2008, Respondent was in the parking lot area when Ms. Durden walked by to retrieve an object from her car. Respondent was talking to someone in a parked vehicle. The identity of the person in the parked vehicle could not be established and there was no evidence as to the subject of the conversation between Respondent and the unidentified person in the vehicle. As Ms. Durden walked by, Respondent tried to get her attention by yelling out to her “Hey baby.” Ms. Durden did not respond. When she was on her way back into the school, Respondent told her, “Ms. Williams, I know you heard me speaking to you.” Ms. Durden (Williams) then told Respondent, “My name is not ‘hey baby.’ My name is Ms. Williams, and you address me as such.” There was no evidence that Respondent continued to address Ms. Durden inappropriately. On June 5, 2008, Ms. Durden walked into the after care office to speak to Ms. Staples, who was working as an After Care Specialist. Respondent was in the after care office with several other employees, both male and female. When Ms. Durden walked into the after care office, Respondent blurted out “my dick is hard.” Ms. Durden immediately left the room feeling disgusted by Respondent’s remark. Ms. Staples testified that Respondent made the statement “my dick is on hard.” Ms. Staples and the other employees who had been meeting in the after care office also immediately left the office after Respondent’s statement. Ms. Staples and her colleagues were shocked by Respondent’s statement.2 On June 6, 2008, Ms. Durden and Ms. Santos passed out paychecks or pay stubs to employees. Respondent appeared at the threshold of Ms. Durden’s office, which is part of the main office, and asked for his paycheck. Ms. Durden asked Respondent to leave while she sorted through the paychecks. Ms. Durden was uncertain whether Rich was Respondent’s first name or last name. There was a verbal exchange between Respondent and Ms. Durden as to that issue. Respondent remained outside of Ms. Durden’s office, but in a position where he could observe her. Ms. Durden testified, credibly, that Respondent was leering at her. Ms. Durden became so uncomfortable that she started shaking. Prior to June 6, 2008, Ms. Durden had told Ms. Santos that she did not like Respondent and felt uncomfortable around him. Ms. Santos attempted to keep Respondent away from Ms. Durden by offering to get anything he might need from the main office and bringing it to Respondent’s duty station. On one occasion, Ms. Santos observed Respondent staring at Ms. Durden’s rear end. On June 6, 2008, Ms. Santos observed that Ms. Durden was very uncomfortable being in Respondent’s presence. She intervened by finding Respondent’s paycheck and bringing it to him. Ms. Durden reported these incidents first to Ms. Johnson-Brinson (an assistant principal) and then to Mr. Osborne (the principal). Thereafter the School Board followed all relevant procedures leading up to its vote to discipline Respondent by terminating his employment. Ms. Johnson-Brinson is not aware of any complaints from any Lawrence Center employees other than Ms. Durden pertaining to inappropriate behavior by Respondent. Mr. Osborn testified as to the reasons he recommended the termination of Respondent’s employment. Part of those reasons related to behavior by Respondent during his tenure at the Lawrence Center that was not alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. That non-alleged behavior is irrelevant and has not been considered by the undersigned in reaching the findings and conclusions set forth in this Recommended Order.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school custodian. Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME"). Pursuant to the AFSCME contract, Respondent may only be discharged for "just cause." Background From May 2000 through August 2008, Respondent was assigned to the Department of Plant Operations. During that period of time, two conferences for the record were held to discuss Respondent's insubordinate conduct. The first, which was held on June 30, 2005, addressed various concerns, which included Respondent's failure to follow directives, insubordination, and failure to follow procedures. During the second conference for the record, conducted on September 30, 2005, Respondent's superiors again admonished him for insubordinate acts and his failure to follow directives. On August 1, 2008, Respondent was reassigned to Coral Reef Senior High School ("Coral Reef"). Respondent was supervised by a head custodian, who in turn reported to Alvaro Mejia, one of Coral Reef's assistant principals. At the beginning of each school year relevant to this proceeding, Coral Reef administration provided Respondent with typed schedules, which clearly provided, in relevant part, that from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Respondent would "clean all hallways and stairwells . . . . Clean first floor restrooms of main building and any other assigned duty deemed necessary by supervisor." (Emphasis in original). The schedule further provided that Respondent's work day concluded at 4:00 p.m. Almost immediately, administrators noticed that Respondent would often leave work early without permission. As a result of this conduct, two conferences for the record were held with Respondent during September 2008. Respondent's behavior persisted, and a third conference for the record was conducted in March 2009. Instant Allegations During the 2009-2010 academic year, Coral Reef administration again discovered that Respondent was regularly leaving work early without authorization. As a result, on October 14, 2009, Respondent was suspended for 10 days without pay for gross insubordination and refusal to follow payroll procedures. Undeterred by the discipline, Respondent continued to leave campus early upon his return from the suspension. This was confirmed by Mr. Mejia, who reviewed video surveillance footage of the custodial work area. In particular, Mr. Mejia learned that Respondent left work 29 minutes early on October 29, 2009, 93 minutes early on October 30, 26 minutes early on November 2, 29 minutes early on November 4, and 30 minutes early on November 5. Compounding the problem, the sign- out log reveals that on each of these five occasions, Respondent falsely recorded 4:00 p.m. as the time he left work. On November 6, 2009, Ms. Adrianne Leal, the principal of Coral Reef, provided Respondent with a professional responsibilities memorandum, wherein she admonished him for continuing to leave early and for falsifying the payroll record by recording inaccurate sign-out times. The memorandum further reminded Respondent that his work day did not end until 4:00 p.m. Although Respondent ended his practice of recording inaccurate sign-out times, he continued to leave work early, including the very day he received the professional responsibilities memorandum. Specifically, Mr. Mejia's review of the video footage demonstrated that Respondent left 31 minutes early on November 6, 2009, 27 minutes early on November 9, 32 minutes early on November 10, 34 minutes early on November 12, 32 minutes early on November 13, 30 minutes early on November 16, and 31 minutes early on November 17 and 18. Respondent's behavior continued over the course of the next several months, during which he left work early without authorization on 11 occasions. In particular, Mr. Mejia confirmed that Respondent left work 24 minutes early on December 16, 2009, 20 minutes early on January 7, 2010, 31 minutes early on January 8, 26 minutes early on January 20, 30 minutes early on January 21, 92 minutes early on January 22, 12 minutes early on January 25, 34 minutes early on January 26, 29 minutes early on January 27, 26 minutes early on January 28, and 64 minutes early on January 29. Subsequently, on February 3, 2010, Ms. Leal issued Respondent a memorandum titled, "Accrued Leave Without Pay," which notified Respondent that he had been docked one day without pay based upon his early departures from campus during December 2009 and January 2010. On February 18, 2010, Ms. Leal held a conference for the record with Respondent, during which she discussed his history of misbehavior, reminded him of his responsibilities, and emphasized the fact that his work day did not end until 4:00 p.m. Nevertheless, Respondent persisted with his misconduct and failed to work until 4:00 p.m. on approximately 30 occasions during the months of February, March, and April 2010. On March 12, April 21, and May 17, 2010, Ms. Leal issued Respondent "Accrued Leave Without Pay" notices. As the months passed, Mr. Mejia continued to document numerous instances where Respondent departed campus prior to 4:00 p.m. without permission. In particular, from July 27, 2010, through October 21, 2010, Respondent left work at 3:40 p.m. or earlier on no fewer than 28 occasions. On November 2, 2010, its benevolence finally exhausted, Petitioner summoned Respondent to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards for a final conference for the record. Subsequently, Petitioner notified Respondent in writing that it intended to suspend him without pay and initiate dismissal proceedings. Ultimate Findings The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of non-performance of job duties. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent is guilty of failing to behave in such a manner that reflects credit upon himself and the school system. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent 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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an adult black female. At all times material, she was employed by Respondent, School Board of Nassau County, as a Guidance Counselor at Fernandina Beach High School. Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent in 1959 as a teacher of physical education, but she has been a guidance counselor in her present location since the 1972 school term. Her total tenure with the School Board is approximately 29 years. She is certified in Administration and Supervisory Guidance, Physical Education, Health Education, and Driver Education. On June 28, 1989, the Respondent posted/published an advertisement for the newly created position of "Assistant Principal-Student Services" (AP-Student Services) at Fernandina Beach High School. The new position had come about through a study commission. The membership of the commission included Fernandina Beach High School Principal William R. Fryar. The commission had been appointed by Respondent's Superintendent Craig Marsh. Over the course of a year, the commission had developed the criteria and threshold qualifications for the new position along with other proposed staffing changes. The method by which a person would be hired for any such position with Respondent would include meeting the threshold qualifications, passing successfully through an interview panel, interviewing with Principal Fryar, being recommended by Principal Fryar to Superintendent Marsh, and being recommended by Superintendent Marsh to the School Board. The School Board would do the ultimate hiring. The threshold qualifications for the position vacancy, as stated in Respondent's June 28, 1989 announcement included the following: a) three years counselling experience preferred at 9-12 level; b) hold or be eligible for Level I certificate; c) hold or be eligible for Florida Counselor certification; and d) experience in managing student data entry, Florida experience preferred. On July 24, 1989, Petitioner applied for the position vacancy. She was the only one of Respondent's employees who met the foregoing qualifications. Only one other person, a white male, submitted an application in response to the June 28, 1989 position vacancy announcement. The white male was from out of state but eligible for in-state certification. Both Petitioner and the sole other applicant met the published/posted threshold qualifications. Petitioner and the sole other applicant were individually interviewed by a three person interview panel made up of three state certified interviewers. Two interviewers were white females and one interviewer was a black male. All the interviewers were employed by the Respondent. The white male applicant received a slightly higher interview score than did Petitioner, but neither scored outside the average range. The interview scores were not passed on to Dr. Fryar, and the committee did not relay any recommendation to hire either applicant. Dr. Fryar did not interview either applicant because there were only two applicants and because neither applicant had been recommended by the interview panel. Consequently, neither Petitioner (a black female) nor the white male was selected to fill the vacancy. The Respondent had previously and consistently hired only from a field of three or more applicants. Page 3, Section II. C. 12. of the School Board of Nassau County Human Resource Management Manual (Adopted 12/11/86; Revised 6/22/89) provides, "The selection system includes the recommendation of three to five candidates to the superintendent." Superintendent Marsh's personal preference also was to not hire for any position unless there was a field of at least three applicants who had successfully passed the interview panel stage. On August 3, 1989, the position vacancy remained open and the Respondent published a readvertisement for the position. The threshold qualifications and the duties projected for this position remained identical to those published in the June 28, 1989 announcement. Respondent received only one application in response to the August 3, 1989 advertisement. That applicant subsequently withdrew. When he was not hired, the white male applicant had asked not to be notified of future advertisements. Petitioner did not apply in response to the August 3, 1989 readvertisement although she was still interested in the position, because she had not received the second advertisement. Petitioner discovered she had not received the second advertisement and was upset about it because Respondent had notified her that her first application would be kept on file for a year. After the second advertisement netted no applicants, the same consideration of not hiring from a field of applicants of less than three still obtained. Presumably, that consideration would have prevailed even if Petitioner had re-applied in response to the second advertisement. Originally, the belief had been that the AP-Student Services should be required to hold a counselling certificate because he or she would oversee three counsellors in addition to being required to devise, upgrade, and maintain student data bases on a computer. However, because Dr. Fryar and Superintendent Marsh and their advisers believed there was a greater need to develop a data base on the students than to have yet another counselor, Dr. Fryar and Superintendent Marsh incorporated the duties of the Fernandina Beach High School's data systems manager into the threshold qualifications for AP-Student Services. Also, in order to widen the potential field of applicants, they revised the requirement of counselor certification out of the threshold qualifications. Neither revision was done by running the idea through a committee again. On October 16, 1989, the Respondent advertised the AP-Student Services position for a third time. In an effort to get more and better applicants, this third advertisement was circulated differently than the two prior advertisements. Respondent devised a new distribution system for its third advertisement. Under the new system, the specific schools received the posting directly rather than having it funneled to them through the district. For the reasons indicated above, the threshold qualifications for the position as advertised the third time were different from those stated in the June 28, 1989 and August 3, 1989 postings in the following particulars: a) the requirement of guidance certification was eliminated; b) "three years counseling experience preferred at 9-12 level" was amended to read "three years counselling and/or other student services experience preferred at 9-12 level"; c) the requirement of "hold or be eligible for Florida Counselor certification" was deleted in its entirety; and d) the requirement of "experience in managing student data entry Florida experience preferred" was amended to read, "experience with computerized data systems: Florida experience preferred." In response to the October 16, 1989 vacancy posting, the Respondent received approximately 10 applications. Eight of the ten applicants were interviewed. Petitioner timely submitted her application in response to the October 16, 1989 vacancy posting. Petitioner met the changed threshold qualifications and was interviewed. On November 1, 1989, interviews were conducted with eight applicants, including Petitioner, all of whom met the threshold qualifications. The interviewees consisted of five white males, one white female, one black male, and Petitioner, a black female. The interviewers were all certified interviewers, and this time the interviewers were selected from outside the school district, so they were not Respondent's employees. The interviewer pool was racially mixed. Three interviewers interviewed each applicant. Not all interviewees were interviewed by the same interviewers. Petitioner was interviewed by Cathy Merritt, Bob Kuhn, and Doris Thornton. Ms. Thornton is black. At the conclusion of the interviews, the interviewers, through data integration, by consensus and not by averages, awarded a consensus score to each applicant in each of fourteen categories. The three applicants with the highest scores consisted of one black male and two white males. Petitioner's scores were lower than those of the top three applicants and in the average range. Principal Fryar interviewed the three highest scoring applicants without benefit of knowing their scores. However, the applicant ultimately appointed to the position did, indeed, have the highest scores among all the applicants. His scores were all above average. The procedure used to fill the new position is called "target selection," and is enumerated in the School Board's Human Resource Management Plan, which plan is mandated pursuant to Section 231.087, F.S. and approved by the Florida Council on Educational Management. Petitioner was not selected for the position of AP-Student Services. She was notified on November 10, 1989 of the selection of one of the three finalists, a white male, Richard Galloni. Prior to his promotion, Mr. Galloni was chairman of Fernandina Beach High School's mathematics department and served as the school's data systems manager. On December 28, 1989, Petitioner timely filed a charge of racial discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations pursuant to Section 760.10, F.S. alleging that she had been discriminatorily denied promotion to the position of AP-Student Services. All of the administrators of Fernandina Beach High School are white. Approximately, 8% of the teaching faculty is black. Twenty-five per cent of the student body is black. Greater percentages of blacks in each category exist in other schools in the County.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Human Relations Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of April, 1992. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 2nd day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-4323 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-9, 11-21, and 23: Accepted except as modified to eliminate subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative material. 10: Rejected as not supported by the record. Covered in Findings of Fact 13- 15. 22: Covered as modified to more correctly reflect the record in Findings of Fact 10-12. See also Conclusions of Law. Respondent's PFOF: 1-7, 10, 11-12, and 14: Accepted except as modified to eliminate subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative material. 8, and 13: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. 9: Accepted in part and in part rejected as not supported, by the record as a whole, as covered in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Lamb, Jr., Esquire Perry & Lamb, P.A. 605 E. Robinson Street Suite 630 Orlando, Florida 32801 Marshall E. Wood, Esquire 303 Centre Street Suite 200 Post Office P Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113 Mr. Craig Marsh, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the acts complained of in the Notices of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner on June 30, 2005; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the responsibility to operate, control and to supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County, Florida public school district. Such authority includes the personnel decisions for non-instructional persons employed by the School Board. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the Respondents were employed by the School Board as electricians assigned to work from the Coral Reef Satellite Maintenance Operations Department (Coral Reef). The Respondents received their daily assignment at the Coral Reef site and then went to the assigned job location to perform their assigned work. As part of their duties, the Respondents were required to clock in and out at the Coral Reef site. There are two time machines at the Coral Reef site and each employee is responsible for personally swiping his identification badge through the clock. The machine generates a computer record for the time of arrival and departure for each employee. Thus the daily time record can be produced for payroll purposes. Each time clock is under surveillance by a video camera system that records all activity at the time clocks. The video records each employee as he or she clocks in or out. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the School Board’s policy required that each Coral Reef employee personally swipe his identification badge when clocking in or out. In 1982, the Respondents were arrested for vehicular theft and possession of burglary tools. The Respondents were placed on probation for one year and six months for larceny, burglary and having burglary tools in their possession. Adjudication was withheld. In 1987, the Respondents completed applications for employment with the School Board. Such applications were falsified in that they failed to disclose the arrest and criminal disposition described above. The Petitioner did not discover the falsified applications until 1997, when the fingerprinting of school personnel was required by law. Once discovered, both of the Respondents were issued a letter that directed them to “refrain from any further falsification regarding information requested of you by this employer. Failure to comply with this directive will lead to disciplinary action.” The Respondents did not dispute the prior criminal history, do not dispute that they were warned to refrain from further behavior regarding the falsification of information, and do not dispute that they are subject to the School Board rules regarding non-instructional personnel. On March 5, 2004, Frank Semberger clocked out for himself and the Respondents at 3:30 p.m. Since Mr. Semberger possessed the Respondents’ badges in order to swipe them through the time machine, it is reasonable to find that the Respondents provided the badges to Mr. Semberger. The Respondents have not suggested that their badges were either stolen or missing at the relevant time. By allowing Mr. Semberger to clock out for them, the Respondents violated the Petitioner’s time clock policy. On March 19, 2004, Ismael Perez clocked out for himself on one time clock then proceeded to the second time clock and was video recorded swiping a second time there. The time records established that Juan Perez’ badge was swiped at or near the time Ismael Perez was video-taped swiping a time clock. Moreover, the time records did not disclose a second swiping of Ismael Perez’ badge. That is to say there is no record that Ismael Perez “double swiped” his own badge. It is reasonable to find that Juan Perez provided his badge to Ismael Perez so that it could be swiped at the pertinent time. By allowing Ismael Perez to swipe his badge for him, the Respondent, Juan Perez, violated the time clock policy. By swiping his brother’s badge, Ismael Perez violated the time clock policy. The Coral Reef center uses a form described as a daily status form (DSF) to track the assignments for all tradespersons who are sent from Coral Reef to a job site. The form documents the travel time to and from the job site, the hours at the site performing the work, and the status of the work. All tradespersons are to present the DSF at the job site and have the principal or the principal’s designee sign the form. The DSF is dated (including the time of day) and signed both on arrival and at departure from the job site. Although it is difficult to locate a principal or the principal’s designee on busy days or during early morning hours (when many workers arrive at the job), the School Board’s maintenance employee handbook (which is provided to or is available and known to all trades people employed by the Petitioner) specifically requires that all daily status forms be dated and then signed by all tradespersons reporting time on the DSF. Ismael Perez knew the policy required the signature of the principal or the principal’s designee. In practice, many tradespersons do not take time to locate an appropriate signatory. Such behavior is in conflict with the policy. On March 19, 2004, the Respondents submitted a DSF that indicated they had each worked eight hours at Coral Reef Senior High School installing a new outlet to eliminate an extension cord being used to operate a fish tank. The DSF was purportedly signed by Arthur James, a zone mechanic at the school. Mr. James did not sign the DCF. Someone forged Mr. James’ signature on the form. On March 19, 2004, the Respondents did not spend eight hours at Coral Reef Senior High School installing a new outlet for the fish tank. On March 19, 2004, Julio Horstman and Martin Mikulas went to the Coral Reef Senior High School site several times attempting to locate the Respondents. No one at the site verified that the Respondents had been there on that date. Mr. James who had purportedly signed their DSF could not verify the Respondents were on the job on the date in question. On March 5, 9, 10, 11, and 29, 2004, the Respondents turned in DSFs that were not signed by authorized personnel at Coral Reef Senior High School. The name purportedly signed on the forms was a person not employed at the school. These DSFs were not completed correctly and cannot support the hours represented by them. The DSFs claimed the Respondents had spent 78 hours working on the Coral Reef Senior High School marquee. No one at the school can verify the Respondents were there for that time on the dates in question. Had the Respondents complied with the policy, gotten appropriate signatures on the DSF, the uncertainty would not exist. The time spent at the site would be easily verifiable. As it is, persons who went to the job site looking for the Respondents on the pertinent dates could not find them. The Respondents were assigned a large project at the dance studio for the Southwood Middle School (Southwood). They never completed the job. According to the DSFs submitted by the Respondents they worked 120 hours at the site over the following dates: January 26, 27, 28, and 29; March 15, 17, and 28; and April 29 and 30, 2004. Despite the number of days and the number of hours allegedly expended at the site by the Respondents, the dance instructor at the site saw them for only “a couple of hours.” Given the description of her duties and her constant presence in and near the studio during the pertinent time, it would have been reasonable for the instructor to observe the Respondents more than “a couple of hours” for a 120-hour job. Additionally, the Respondents submitted DSFs that were not signed by the Southwood principal or the principal’s designee. In fact, the DSFs submitted for the Southwood job contained the names of persons not employed at Southwood. As the names cannot be verified, the times of arrival and departure from the Southwood site cannot be verified. It is reasonable to find the Respondents again violated the DSF policy. Similar incidents occurred on March 22, 24, 25, and 28, 2004. On each of these dates the Respondents submitted DSFs that cannot be verified. In each instance the person whose name is on the form is not an employee at the school site to which the Respondents were to work. Mr. Horstmann, who went to the job sites looking for the Respondents, could not locate them. The inclusion of a false name or the forgery of a name on a DSF is contrary to School Board policy. The Respondents knew or should have known that the submission of the DSFs without proper signatories was against policy. Article IV of the DCSMEC contract requires that employees such as the Respondents be disciplined for “just and good cause.” The DCSMEC contract does not require “progressive discipline.” At all times material to the allegations of these cases the Respondents were advised of their rights to have a Union representative present during any conference for the record (CFR) regarding the issues of these cases. Additionally, the Respondents were advised that the School Police were conducting an investigation of the matter and waived their right to representation (legal or Union) during the course of an interview with Detective Hodges. The Petitioner conducted a CFR on November 8, 2004. At that time the Respondents appeared with a Union representative. After receiving information regarding the improper time clock and DSFs, the Respondents were afforded an opportunity to explain or provide additional information that would respond to the allegations. Martin Mikulas recommended to the School Superintendent that the Respondents be terminated from their employment with the school district. That recommendation went to the School Board on May 18, 2005, and the action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondents for non-performance, deficient performance, and misconduct was approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order approving the suspensions and dismissals of the Respondents. S DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Randolph F.Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert A. Sugarman, Esquire Sugarman & Susskind, P.A. 2801 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 750 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Melinda L. McNichols, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In March of 1980, the petitioner submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation an application for a permit to dredge and construct a flow-through inland waterway to provide navigational access to a proposed upland development to be known as "Curry Cove" along the east coast of Key Largo in Monroe County. As presently envisioned, the proposed "Curry Cove" is to be a private, residential vacation-type subdivision located on 70 acres of land between Highway No. 1 and the Atlantic Ocean. The subdivision will consist of townhouses and single-family dwellings for a total of 219 residential units. No commercial use of the upland property is planned. At present, the upland site is a dense, tropical hardwood hammock. As subsequently revised, the proposed upland canal is to be 4,400 feet long from north to south, with varying widths of from 70 to 125 feet and an average depth of -4.0 MLW, and will be connected by a north and south channel to the Atlantic Ocean. The southern channel is designed for navigational ingress and egress and has dimensions of 250 feet in length and 50 feet in width. The northern circulation channel will be 150 feet long and 50 feet wide and will be blocked to navigation by unidirectional tidal flap gates, which will force the waters to move from a southerly to a northerly direction. The canal is designed to have a two-day flushing period, with approximately 65 percent of the waters exiting through the northern circulation channel. An upland "catchment beach" is proposed for the entrance to the navigation channel to trap organic debris. A shallow basin will be excavated on the northern end to increase the exchange of water. The total project as proposed entails the removal by dredging of approximately 176,580 cubic yards of material landward of mean high water and 1,780 cubic yards waterward of mean high water. Materials removed are to be hauled away and deposited on an undesignated upland site. The project also involves the removal of approximately one-fourth acre of red and black mangroves, including several mature trees ranging from 20 to 30 feet in height, and approximately .21 acres of seagrasses and algae. The algae/seagrass area to be dredged, 1,115 square meters, is expected to result in the loss of approximately 2,500 pounds of seagrass annually. Petitioners propose to replant or recreate mangroves and seagrass. Mangrove seedlings will be planted over an area the size of the area of mangroves the waterways will remove. Petitioners propose to replant seagrasses in an area about four times the area of seagrass/algae which will be removed by the project. One of the issues in this proceeding is whether any portion of this project, specifically the northern circulation channel, lies within the boundaries of the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. This Park contains one of the finest and most unique coral reefs, located four to five miles offshore, within the Continental United States. The Park area encompasses some 178 nautical square miles, with a 22 mile coastline, a width of seven or eight miles and a 72-acre land base. The area is unique with Caribbean-type vegetation and is the only tropical/subtropical marine community of its kind in the Continental United States. The mangroves, seagrasses and reef areas in the Park function interdependently and each part is needed for the maintenance of the other. Animals which live on the reef come into the grass beds and the mangrove shoreline to feed and use as nursery grounds. In 1981, over 408,000 people from 90 different countries visited the Park, and at least 67,000 boats utilized the Park waters. A 40 percent increase in visitation has been noted this year. A commercial marina is located within the Park and educational programs are provided by Park staff. The shoreline of the project site is a typical Florida Keys shoreline with a calcium carbonate substrate. This soft rock substrate allows for the burrowing of benthic animals and attachment and growth of algae and sponges. Waterward of the upland hardwood hammock, there is a transition zone of buttonwood and other plants and then a mangrove community comprised primarily of blacks and red mangroves, with some whites. Beyond this mangrove area is a rocky intertidal area vegetated largely by algae and, finally, the most waterward zone is mixed with seagrasses, primarily turtle grass, and hard rock with algae growing on it. The seagrass/algae community supports diverse populations of corals, sponges and mollusks. A sample from the offshore bay bottom community in the area of the proposed access channels revealed approximately 1800 macroinvertibrate organisms in about six square inches. Extrapolating those figures to a square meter, the approximate number of organisms would be in the neighborhood of 60,000. These figures far exceed samples taken from nearby existing access channels. The dredging of the algae/seagrass area will disrupt an area found to be exceptionally rich in macroinvertibrates. Because a channel is dredged deeper than the controlling depth of the offshore water, access channel bottoms are characterized by discontinuity and an accumulation of fine-grained silty sediments. High siltation is characteristic of other existing channels in the area of petitioners' proposed project. Such a substrate is not conducive to a productive marine community and supports a very reduced macroinvertibrate population. The destruction of mangroves, algae meadows and seagrasses which provide significant nursery and feeding grounds for a wide diversity of aquatic species will have an adverse impact on the natural and aquatic resources of the area. Increased turbidity around the access channel during construction and afterward will cause silts and sands to be released and this will place stress upon the areas adjacent to the channel. Such a stressful situation will cause a reduction of diversity in the immediate area of the project. As noted above, nearshore areas serve a vital function as a habitat for larval and juvenile development, as well as for feeding. Petitioners do propose to recreate a similar number of mangroves as are removed by the dredging and to replant seagrasses in the proposed channels. If these efforts were successful and algae naturally revegetated in the channel, productive marine habitat may come up into the channel and the waterway could provide a shelter for fish. While some success has been found with respect to the replanting or recreation of mangroves, a similar success rate for the replanting of seagrasses in access channels and artificial waterways in the Florida Keys was not adequately demonstrated. Some of the mangroves to be destroyed are 20 to 30 feet tall. It could take ten years or more for a new mangrove to attain such height. Petitioners' stormwater management plan will retain the first one inch of rainfall and no pollutants are expected to be generated from upland runoff. From a hydrographic standpoint, the proposed project's two-day flushing time is acceptable. The existence or non-existence of benthic communities in an area are important indicators of water quality trends. Monitoring has been conducted by the DER to access the impact of existing access channels on the Florida Keys upon offshore benthic communities and water quality. The benthic community which presently exists at the proposed project site is much more diverse and significant than in existing access channels which were typically found to be unvegetated. The highly organic materials in the sediment of existing access channels have been found to be toxic to many marine organisms and dissolved oxygen violations have been found in the existing basins and access channels. It can be anticipated that the development of anaerobic sediments, loss of vegetation, decomposition and the destabilization of the area will result in lower levels of dissolved oxygen in the proposed waterway. Also, although the proposed two-day flushing time was deemed adequate in this project from a hydrographic standpoint, water in artificial waterways and access channels tends to be stratified with cold, dense water on the bottom and warmer water on the surface. This indicates that clean water is not adequately circulating throughout the water column and oxygen is being depleted. Stratified waters typically violate dissolved oxygen standards. As water from the canal exists from the northern access channel, it will exert an oxygen demand upon the outside water. Numerous access channels presently exist in the Florida Keys. It is estimated that some 52 acres of submerged bottoms have been dredged with a resulting loss in biological productivity. There is a shortage of boat docking space in the Florida Keys. The "Curry Cove" project would provide jobs to the construction industry and would necessitate the procurement of labor, materials and supplies, thus boosting the local economy. The subject property could be developed without a boat basin, though the present applicants are not interested in doing so. The applicants have not yet received the consent of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources for the use of sovereignty lands. The waters within the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park are designated and classified as Outstanding Florida Waters. The respondent's land management specialist determined from a review of maps and documents on file with the Department of Natural Resources that the petitioners' proposed northeastern circulation channel fell within the boundaries of the Park. George M. Cole, a professional land surveyor who had previously performed survey work for the Department of Natural Resources in relation to a determination of the southern boundary of the Park, determined that the location of the north end of the proposed project is 363 feet south of the southerly Park boundary. In 1959, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund dedicated certain submerged lands as the Key Large Coral Reef Preserve, now known as a portion of the Pennekamp Park. The boundaries of the Preserve were created in relation to markers and navigation aids. The description includes a reference to a line running from Black Day Beacon "37," which is described with reference to an "approximate" latitude and longitude. A Presidential Proclamation entered on March 15, 1960, created the Preserve pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, describing the area in a fashion identical to the State dedication, including the location of Day Beacon "37." In 1967, the Trustees expanded its dedication to include Those submerged tidal bottom lands in the Atlantic Ocean lying between the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo including the submerged land in Largo Sound and the various inlets along the easterly coast of Key Largo; . . . Thus, the boundaries of the 1967 dedication is first dependent upon the boundaries in the original dedication, and the phrase "lands. . .lying between the. . .Park and Key Largo" are dependent upon some amount of interpretation. Mr. Cole's original survey concerning the southern boundaries of the Park revealed that the position of Day Beacon "37" stated in the previous dedications' descriptions as its approximate location was not an exact geographical description of its actual physical location. Current National Ocean Survey maps have positioned Day Beacon "37" at a latitude and longitude consistent with Mr. Cole's on-ground measurements. For purposes of locating a boundary, the physical location of a monument controls over written calls of its location. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined that the project site is not within the Park boundaries, but is located approximately 363 feet south of the Park's southerly boundary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioners' application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a waterway in Key Large be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 2nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire Jane E. Heerema, Esquire and William J. Roberts, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Ray Allen, Esquire Sireci, Allen, Kelly & Muldoon, P.A. 605 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040
