The Issue The issues here are as presented through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent falsified applications related to her certification as a teacher in the State of Florida and her employment as a teacher in the Duval County, Florida School System. In particular it is alleged that Respondent falsely answered questions pertaining to her arrest or conviction for a misdemeanor offense in Jacksonville, Florida. For these acts, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, in that she has obtained her teaching certificate by fraudulent means and been guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Moreover, it is alleged that further fraud was committed related to Rule 6B- 1.06(5)(a)(g) and (h) Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to fraudulent statements or disclosures.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1981, Shirley Lambert made application to be certified as a teacher in the fields of health education and physical education. This certification request was made with a State of Florida, Department of Education Teacher Certification section. A copy of the application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. As part of the application, question V asks, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Lambert responded in the negative. Lambert also signed the application form below that portion of the application related to notarization which states "I understand that Florida Statutes provide revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate is obtained by fraudulent means. (Section 231.28 FS). I certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct." As a result of this application, Respondent was issued a teacher's certificate from the State of Florida, Department of Education in the field of physical education. The date of the issuance was June 25, 1982, for a period ending June 30, 1983. A copy of this certificate is found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. In fact, as was known to the Respondent at the time of making the application for certificate, she had been arrested and charged with petit theft for an offense that occurred on April 11, 1978, the taking of clothing less than $100 in value. The basis of the charge was Section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent pled guilty to this offense and was given a ten day jail sentence which was suspended and probation imposed for a period of six months. The particulars of this disposition may be found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 3, which contained records of court related to the offense. On August 10, 1982, Respondent made application for employment with the Duval County School Board, Jacksonville, Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This application had a similar question related to prior criminal offenses. The application stated, "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Again, the question was answered in the negative although Respondent was aware of the aforementioned criminal violation at the time she answered this questionnaire. The application was signed by Respondent and at the place of signature, Lambert was exposed to the language at the signature line which states "I certify that all information on this application is true and accurate and recognize that it is subject to verification and that my employment and/or continuance thereof is contingent upon its accuracy." Not being mindful of her prior criminal involvement the Duval County School System hired Respondent as a substitute teacher on September 13, 1982. Her criminal record was later disclosed to the administrators within that system and her employment was terminated effective October 12, 1982. Had the administration known of the prior criminal involvement, they would not have hired Lambert in view of the fact that they could be more selective and not choose a person with a prior criminal involvement, given the high number of applicants for jobs within their system. Dalton Epting, Director of Certified personnel of Duval County Public Schools, felt that a prior conviction of a misdemeanor offense of petit larceny would be in violation of standards required of teachers in Duval County. Likewise, the offense of petit larceny would be sufficient grounds to deny certification when requested of the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent testified that in the course of the final hearing and indicated in discussing both applications which are at issue that she read those applications too fast and made a mistake in answering the questions related to her prior criminal involvement. She felt in effect that she had not read the applications carefully. Moreover, in giving her explanation at final hearing, even though she recognized her prior criminal involvement in the way of arrest and the plea of guilty to petit theft, she stated that she did not feel the questions in the applications related to misdemeanors. She was of the opinion that the questions pertained to more serious crimes. Given the plain language of the questions in the application for certification with the State of Florida and the application for a position with the Duval County School Board and the precautionary statements related to accuracy and possible penalties for inaccuracy, Respondent's explanations are not plausible. Respondent's comments do not constitute a reasonable excuse for having falsified her applications for certification and employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School- North, an alternative school, on December 16, 1982, because of his unacceptable conduct in Grade 9 at North Miami Junior High School. Petitioner presented evidence of 16 incidents of conduct by Respondent which required disciplinary action in the year preceding his reassignment to the alternative education program. Additionally, his grades in all courses were unsatisfactory at the time of reassignment. Respondent did not accept the alternative school assignment and instead obtained employment at a restaurant. He is now living with his grandmother, Mrs. Helen Wood, who seeks his return to a regular junior high school program. She has discussed this proposal with the principal of Thomas Jefferson Junior High School and he apparently agrees with her. Respondent's evidence established that his family life was difficult and disruptive during the period of his misconduct. His situation has now stabilized and he is responsive to his grandmother's supervision. He should, therefore, be given an opportunity to return to the regular academic program (Grade 9) at Thomas Jefferson Junior High School.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order classifying Respondent as a disruptive student, but permitting him to attend the Thomas Jefferson Junior High School in a probationary status. ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1983, 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 6th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Mrs. Helen Ward 1000 Northwest 153rd Street Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The central issue in case no. 88-2368 is whether Respondent should be suspended for thirty workdays due to misconduct in office. The central issue in case no. 88-3315 is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment due to misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and incompetency.
Findings Of Fact COPIES FURNISHED: Marlene Rodriguez 16333 Wood Walk Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Frank Harder Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: With regard to case no. 88-2368, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to suspend Respondent for a thirty workday period for misconduct in office. With regard to case no. 88-3315, that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order affirming the administrative decision to dismiss Respondent from employment for misconduct in office, incompetence, and gross insubordination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-2368, 88-3315 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the exception of George C. Clark, Mr. Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraphs 3-4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not specific facts adduced by such testimony; some of the recitation being without basis. It is found that Respondent did not follow school policies regarding the discipline administered to students, that Respondent was aware of the correct procedures, and that Respondent continuously had trouble regarding classroom management. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is unnecessary to the conclusions reached in this cause. Paragraph 10 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but as a indication of the student-teacher relationship between Respondent and one of the students she taught. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted therein but see p.9 above as it relates to the hearsay contents of the letter. Other portions of the paragraph which conclude respondent knew discipline procedures but did not follow them, or knew notice policies but did not follow them are accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19,20,21, and 22 are accepted only to the extent addressed in findings of fact, paragraphs 7,8,9, and 10; otherwise, the proposed findings are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by admissible evidence. Paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 26, the first two sentences are accepted, the balance is rejected as hearsay or unsupported by the record in this cause. Paragraphs 27, 29, and 30 are accepted. (Petitioner did not submit a paragraph 28) In the future, proposed findings submitted which do not conform to the rules of the Florida Administrative Code will be summarily rejected. Petitioner is cautioned to review applicable rules, and to cite appropriately. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraph 1 is accepted with the clarification that Clark's testimony was offered by deposition. Paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, according to the evidence in this case, Repodent taught at Miami Gardens Elementary School (Leon was her principal there) and North Carol City Elementary School (Sawyer and Brown were her principals there). Other schools may have been assigned during her periods of "special assignment" but the record is insufficient to establish Respondent's performance while on such assignments. The record is insufficient to make the legal conclusion addressed in paragraph 4, consequently, it is rejected. The Board addressed a recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment; however, the record does not establish final action was taken. The facts alleged in paragraph 5 are too voluminous to address in one paragraph. Petitioner's continued use of a recitation of the testimony does not constitute findings of fact. Pertinent to this case are the following facts adduced from Petitioner's paragraph 5: that Respondent's overall performance was unacceptable, that Respondent failed to direct students who were off task, that Respondent made an excessive number of referrals for discipline, and that the atmosphere in Respondent's class was not conducive to learning. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 6, it is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. See finding made regarding paragraph 5, case no. 88-2368. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the specific evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10-14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected with the exception of the last sentence; the time sequence referred to is not specified in the record. The record does establish, however, that Respondent did not make progress in correcting noted areas of deficiency. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have duplicate numbers for the following paragraphs: 15,16, and 17. The second set of these paragraphs are addressed below. Second paragraph 15 accepted not for the truth of the matters asserted but as an indication of the teacher-student relationship between Respondent and her student. Second paragraph 16 is accepted. Second paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraphs 19-22 are accepted.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such allegations are just cause for termination of her employment with the School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Lissa Nappier, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. The Respondent’s employment relationship with the Petitioner began in 1984 when she was retained as a temporary instructor. In 1988 she was hired as a permanent teacher and was assigned to Homestead Senior High School where she has continued service until the instant issues emerged. From 2004 until the time of her recommended termination, the Respondent was employed as the Student Activities Director at the school. Prior to the instant matter, the Respondent has had no disciplinary issues or actions. As a condition of her employment with the Petitioner, the Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a contract between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD contract). Article XXIV of the UTD contract provides for credential payment to encourage employees of the School Board to pursue further studies and expertise in their respective fields. Such pursuit enhances the quality of education for students in the school district. At all times material to this case, the credential payment increase for a teacher with a doctorate degree was $7000. The effective date for the implementation of the credential payment is computed “after completion of eligibility requirements, as indicated on the transcript by the issuing university.” The UTD contract further provides that: Completion of eligibility requirements shall be defined as: (a)filing an official M- DCPS/UTD application for credential payment with the Office of Human Resources (receipt acknowledged and dated by M-DCPS); and (b) completion of course work/degree requirements prior to the date of the quarter for which payment is requested, as indicated by the date on the transcript, or other appropriate evidence provided by the university. M-DCPS shall notify all new employees of the availability of the credential payment programs and the procedures for making application. Under the heading “Eligibility,” the UTD contract also states: To qualify as graduate level, credit must have been earned after the applicant was granted the Bachelor’s degree and must be clearly identified as such. Pursuant to the UTD contract, Applicants whose applications are disapproved shall be notified that they may appeal the decision to the committee by resubmitting and supplying such additional and germane information and/or documentation as will be helpful in reaching a decision regarding the appeal. The decision of the committee is final and not grievable or arbitrable. On or about April 8, 2004, the Respondent submitted a note to the Petitioner’s Office of Compensation Administration that stated: Enclosed please find my official transcript for my Doctorate Program. Along with the transcript is a verification form. My employee number is 152174. Thank you for your attention in this matter, and with the necessary adjustments with payroll. Attached to the note described above, was a document purportedly from Rochville University. The Rochville document contained the words “Official Transcript” and purported to indicate that the Respondent had completed the noted courses. The document represented the Respondent had obtained a “Doctor of Arts (Major: Education).” Also attached to the note described in paragraph 11 was a form purportedly executed by the Rochville University Registrar and President that stated: This is to verify that Lissa A. Nappier has successfully completed the Doctor’s Program from Rochville University in the year 2004. In order to obtain the “Doctor of Arts” from Rochville University, the Petitioner submitted her transcripts from Brenau College, Nova Southeastern University, the requisite fees required by the school, and a summary of her 18 years of teaching experience to Rochville. Rochville University is an “on line” institution. The Respondent did not complete additional course work, did not write a thesis, and did not attempt to verify that Rochville University was an acceptable, accredited school prior to paying her fees for the degree and submitting the documents to the Petitioner for credential payment. It is unlikely that Rochville is an accredited university. Its academic claims are related to its status as an accredited “on line” institution. For approximately $600.00 the Respondent received a doctorate degree. After reviewing the Respondent’s documentation, the Petitioner denied the credential payment increase. The Respondent did not challenge or seek additional review of that denial. The matter was referred to the Petitioner’s Office of the Inspector General because the Respondent had “submitted a transcript to obtain credential payment for an advanced degree using a transcript from an unaccredited university.” None of the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript that was appended to the Respondent’s note were actually for course work completed by the Respondent while attending (even online) Rochville classes. None of the hours for the courses depicted on the Rochville University transcript were earned while attending (even online) Rochville classes. The Respondent knew or should have known that a credible doctor of arts degree requires more than the submission of prior coursework, life experience, and the payment of fees. Moreover, the Respondent did not present evidence of any “life experience” that would entitle her to a doctor of arts degree from any accredited university. That Rochville University accepted the Respondent’s experience and prior academic work as sufficient to award a doctorate degree dishonors the hours of work that are, in reality, required of post-graduate students who obtain doctorate degrees from reputable institutions. Although technically truthful in Respondent's representation to the Petitioner, the Respondent’s request for credential payment was clearly not supported by credible academic achievement. The Respondent attempted to obtain credential payment using a non-creditable source. This was a tremendous lapse of good judgment. The Respondent, did not, however represent that Rochville University is an accredited university. She only represented that she had obtained a doctorate degree from that entity. Her lapse of judgment was in attempting to parlay her worthless degree into a credential payment increase. Her effort failed due to the attentive review of her request. At the time the Respondent was going through a divorce and needed additional income. The online approach to obtaining the doctorate degree appeared to be an easy, affordable alternative. The Respondent did not verify that Rochville University was accredited by any national accreditation source or that the university was acceptable to the School Board for purposes of obtaining a post-graduate degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the Respondent’s suspension without pay for the amount of time it deems appropriate, but returning the Respondent to full employment thereafter. S DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 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 29th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
Findings Of Fact Mary L. Baxter has been employed by the Polk County School Board for approximately 14 years, first as a classroom teacher, then as assistant principal, and in 1984 she was appointed as principal of John Cox Elementary School in Lakeland. While assigned to John Cox Elementary School, Petitioner was issued an annual contract for eleven months (Exhibit 5). Neriah E. Roberts is the Northwest Area Superintendent of Polk County Schools and was in that position at all times here relevant. As Northwest Area Superintendent, Dr. Roberts was Petitioner's immediate supervisor and supervised seventeen additional principals of the Polk County School System. Functions of the area superintendent include acting as liaison between the communities and the schools in his area responsibility, assisting the principals in obtaining funding for maintenance and other school activities and overseeing the performance of these principals. As Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Dr. Roberts prepared Petitioner's performance evaluation. In his first annual evaluation of Petitioner's performance (Exhibit 4), Dr. Roberts reported that Petitioner met performance standards. However, two of those blocks contained comments regarding performance by Petitioner that needed to be improved. Under "Student Services," Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should reassess her disciplinary procedures. Dr. Roberts had received complaints from parents of children at John Cox Elementary School indicating Petitioner was paddling an excessive number of pupils. When he checked the discipline records with Petitioner, he found some 97 pupils had been paddled during that school year. That discovery lead to Dr. Robert's comments. Under "Management" on the evaluation, Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should open lines of communication between her staff and her assistant principal. Dr. Roberts had received comments from teachers at John Cox that Petitioner was short tempered and was not popular with members of her instructional staff. On one occasion while Petitioner was principal at John Cox, Dr. Roberts met with the staff at John Cox at which meeting five or six teachers commented unfavorably on Petitioner's relations with her staff. Such reports formed the basis of these comments by Dr. Roberts above noted. In addition to placing the two comments on the March 25, 1985 evaluation, Dr. Roberts submitted a letter to Petitioner dated March 27, 1985 (Exhibit 6) in which he elaborated on the comments placed on the evaluation. Dr. Roberts held another conference with Petitioner on August 14, 1985, which he memorialized in a letter to Petitioner dated August 23, 1985, (Exhibit 7). In this letter, he referred to his March 27, 1985, letter and stated that letter was intended to substitute for a more formal professional development plan. In the evaluation of Petitioner dated March 3, 1986, Dr. Roberts reports that Petitioner successfully met minimum standards in all sections of the evaluation. However, in Section 1, comments are made that "Improvement has been made in leadership style, but this does not preclude the need for continued improvement." Under Item 11 on this evaluation, the comment appears that "Your flexibility and adjustment to this community and students has been good. Due to the inability to read the dates on some of the evaluations contained in Exhibit 4, it is impossible to tell which evaluation was for the second year and which is for the third year Petitioner was principal at John Knox. From Dr. Roberts' testimony, it appears that the evaluation for the second year is included in Exhibit 6, and the evaluation reports in Exhibit 4 in which the date is not legible was for her third year at John Cox. At the expiration of Petitioner's three years as principal at John Cox, she became eligible for a multi-year contract, and Dr. Roberts recommended her for such a contract. When this recommendation reached the superintendent's office, Donald R. Cox, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, noted that the recommendation was inconsistent with school board policy and contacted Dr. Roberts to remind him of the policy that before administrative personnel can be given a multi-year contract, their performance evaluations must be totally satisfactory in each category on the evaluation report for the three years preceding the awarding of a multi-year contract. Dr. Roberts then contacted Petitioner by phone to tell her she would not receive a multi-year contract. Petitioner was quite upset during this conversation and indicated to Dr. Roberts that she would resign. She was requested to put her resignation in writing. This conversation occurred near the end of the week, and the following work day (either Friday or Monday) Dr. Roberts and Dr. Cox met with the superintendent. During this meeting, the status of Petitioner was brought up, and Dr. Roberts told the superintendent that Petitioner had indicated she would resign. Shortly thereafter on January 12, 1987, the superintendent of schools submitted a letter to Petitioner (Exhibit 5), accepting her verbal resignation as principal at John Cox Elementary School and advising her that she would be reassigned to the first available vacancy as assistant principal. By letter dated June 15, 1987 (Exhibit 10), Petitioner indicated she had not resigned and that the charges against her were based on information she had been given no opportunity to challenge or rebut. The superintendent then authorized Dr. Cox to set up a meeting with Petitioner and Dr. Roberts to try and resolve the differences. At this time, it was clear that no valid resignation had been submitted by Petitioner, and this was no longer an avenue to be pursued by the school board. Dr. Cox was authorized by the superintendent to offer Petitioner continued employment as principal of John Cox Elementary School, a transfer to another school as assistant principal at no reduction in salary or a return to professional status as instructional personnel. A meeting was scheduled and held shortly after June 15, 1987 between Roberts, Cox and Petitioner at which Cox offered the above noted alternatives to Petitioner. Petitioner then stated she did not want to remain at John Cox, but would like a lateral transfer to another school as principal. Cox was not authorized to approve the lateral transfer requested by Petitioner and told her he would relay that request to the superintendent and advise Petitioner. When Dr. Cox presented this proposal to the superintendent, the latter indicated he would refuse to recommend to the school board that Petitioner be employed at any other school to a position higher than assistant principal. Cox relayed this information back to Petitioner, and she was subsequently assigned as assistant principal at North Lakeland Elementary School at the same salary she had received as principal at John Cox. Petitioner subsequently requested the hearing to challenge this action, and these proceedings followed.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether to impose sanctions against Respondent, Brooke Braly, up to, and including, revocation of her Educator’s Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for monitoring each person who holds a Florida Educator Certificate and who is working in any school district within the State. Part and parcel of the Commissioner’s duties is the determination of whether any teacher violated any of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. At all times relevant hereto, Ms. Braly held Florida Educator Certificate No. 1106771, covering the areas of elementary education and English for speakers of other languages. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2021. Ms. Braly is employed as a teacher in the Volusia County School System, teaching at the School in the area of Modified ESE with Varying Exceptionalities. Her students were those with physical and/or mental disabilities which resulted in learning difficulties. Ms. Braly had served in that position for seven years as of the date of final hearing, including the 2017-2018 school year. An incident occurred at the School on December 5, 2016, i.e., the 2016-2017 school year, involving the Student. Based on that incident, the Commissioner issued an Administrative Complaint on November 21, 2017 (some 10 months later), which contained the following allegations: On or about December 5, 2017, [Ms. Braly] failed to notify school administrators after she confiscated a BB gun from a student at the beginning of the school day. [Ms. Braly] also failed to properly secure the BB gun to prevent the student from regaining possession of it while still on school property. The Salient Facts From the evidence presented, it is clear that on December 5, 2016, the Student approached Ms. Braly at the beginning of the school day. The Student told Ms. Braly that he had inadvertently failed to remove his BB/airsoft pistol from his backpack before leaving for school that morning. He asked her what he should do, and Ms. Braly took the gun from him to secure it for the day. At no time was she worried that the Student had intentions of using the BB gun or that it was a serious problem. In fact, Ms. Braly did not even believe it was a BB gun, but thought it was a plastic toy gun. At the end of the day, the Student took the gun home with him. As the Student was exiting the school bus at his stop that afternoon, another student sitting on the bus saw the BB gun, which the Student had stuck into his waistband under his shirt. The Student’s shirt was lifted for some reason and the other student spotted the gun. That student went home and immediately sent an email to several School administrators to report what he had seen. The administrators reviewed surveillance videos from the bus and identified the Student as the person carrying the gun. An investigation ensued and the Administrative Complaint was filed. The less clear and/or less persuasive “facts” of this case are set forth below. The Gun The Commissioner presented a picture of a BB gun at final hearing which was purported to be the same gun Ms. Braly had confiscated from the Student on December 5, 2016. The black and white picture shows a replica Smith & Wesson handgun of small to average size. Ms. Braly says that the gun depicted in the picture is not the gun she took from the Student. The Student’s father brought a handgun to final hearing that he said was the gun at issue. It was plastic, lightweight, and tan and black in color. There was a clip (presumably for holding BBs) that could slide into the handle of the gun. The father demonstrated how to insert the clip and how to “cock” the gun by sliding back the top portion. That action would engage a spring that would release once the trigger was pulled, i.e., it was a spring-fired pistol, not a recoil action weapon. According to the Student, the gun fired plastic pellets rather than BBs. Ms. Braly, who only saw the gun for a few moments on the morning of December 5, 2016, remembers it to be black with an orange tip, unlike the gun produced at final hearing. At some point, the Student was asked to identify the gun from a picture depicting several different handguns. The Student pointed out to an investigator which of the depicted guns looked most like his BB pistol. The photographic line-up was not offered or admitted into evidence, so no finding is made as to what it may have shown, vis-à-vis what the gun looked like. At the final hearing, the Student’s father acknowledged that he had previously told School administrators he had destroyed his son’s gun back in December when the event occurred. The gun he produced at final hearing was obviously not destroyed; in fact, it looked very new and barely used. The Student said the gun produced at hearing was the same gun he gave to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016. Mr. Starin, an investigator for the Volusia County School District, was tasked with looking into the incident. He did not speak to the Student’s parents nor did he attempt to locate the gun (other than having the Student identify what the gun looked like from the pictorial lineup). The most persuasive evidence is that the gun given to Ms. Braly on December 5, 2016, was the same as or similar to the one depicted in the Commissioner’s exhibit and proffered at final hearing. It was very light and obviously a toy, but was designed to resemble a real gun. Though it looked somewhat like a real weapon from afar, it is hard to believe anyone who held the gun or saw it up close would think it real or capable of causing serious harm to a person. December 5, 2016 As the Student was walking to his bus stop, he told his sister he had forgotten to remove the BB gun from his backpack after carrying it with him to the park the night before. His sister advised the Student to give the gun to his teacher so as not to get in trouble at school. Upon arrival at the School, the Student immediately approached Ms. Braly, who he trusted and believed would help him do what was most appropriate in this situation. When no other students were nearby, the Student told her about the gun. Ms. Braly took the gun and placed it in her office in a desk drawer. The Student remembers her placing the gun in a cardboard soda can box. Ms. Braly remembers just placing it in a desk drawer. It is patently obvious by his actions that the Student had no intentions of displaying the gun at school for any purpose. He very intentionally tried to diffuse any danger or unease that might have arisen due to his mistake. Ms. Braly took the Student’s actions and demeanor into account when deciding what to do. Ms. Braly thought the toy gun would be safe in her locked office as that was where she kept her purse and car keys during the school day. Normally no one had access to the office during the day, except that construction was going on and some of the workers did have access to the office. Ms. Braly did not consider those workers a threat to steal anything or to rifle through her desk during the day. She also did not consider the toy gun worthy of anyone’s interest. She believed her response to the situation was reasonable, based on all the circumstances and her knowledge of the Student. At the end of the day, the Student retrieved the gun. How that occurred is not entirely clear from the evidence. The Student says that he asked Ms. Braly at the end of the day if he could get his gun. She was very busy at the time and just told him, “yes,” so he went into the office and retrieved it. He remembers Ms. Braly telling him to put it in his backpack so that no one else would see it. He did so, but then transferred it to his waistband later. An ESE co-teacher with Ms. Braly remembers Ms. Braly being completely absorbed in the preparation of an Individual Education Plan for another student that afternoon. The co-teacher had instructed students not to bother Ms. Braly and does not remember the Student or anyone else talking to Ms. Braly that afternoon. Ms. Braly does not remember being asked by the Student whether he could get his gun from the office. She simply did not even think about the gun after acquiring it that morning. To her, the gun was a toy and did not warrant much attention. Sometime the next day, she realized the gun was gone and surmised that the construction workers must have left the door open so that the Student was able to get his gun. She did not explain why she thought the Student – rather than the workers – had taken the gun from her office. At any rate, the Student retrieved his gun before he left for home. As he was exiting the school bus, the other student noticed the gun in his waistband and notified School administrators. That action is very understandable considering the school shootings across the nation in recent times. December 6, 2016 Once the school administrators got word about the gun and identified the Student, they contacted Ms. Braly. The School resource officer, Deputy Abato, went to Ms. Braly’s class and asked to talk to her. They went into her office, away from the students, and she was asked about the gun. The conversation lasted only a few moments. Deputy Abato was only concerned with whether the gun was real or not. Convinced it was not, he did not pursue the matter. Later, Ms. Braly was asked by assistant principal Feltner to write a statement concerning the incident. Her statement reiterated what had happened, i.e., the Student showed her the gun, she identified it as a toy and placed it in her office, and the Student later retrieved it. Again, how she knew that the Student retrieved the gun rather than someone else getting it is not clear. Deputy Abato’s statement from that same day mirrored Ms. Braly’s statement. Deputy Abato said that if a student pulled a gun on him that looked like the one in the picture offered into evidence, he would order the student to put the gun down. If they did not do so, he would likely shoot them. Whether the gun the Student had was like the picture is not clearly established in the record. The best evidence is that the gun could have looked like that, but even that evidence is neither clear nor convincing. The gist of the Commissioner’s argument in this case is that: IF an armed deputy saw the Student with the gun, and IF the deputy ordered him to put it down, BUT the student did not immediately comply, THEN the deputy MIGHT be inclined to fire on the student. Though completely plausible in general terms, that eventuality seems very unlikely under the facts of this case. Later Developments On December 15, 2016, Investigator Starin issued an “Investigative Summary” describing his findings after conducting a brief investigation. The report did little more than recite what other people had said. Mr. Starin concluded that the Student brought the gun to school, gave it to his teacher, and retrieved it at the end of the day. The summary provides little substantive information and makes no recommendation or assertion of wrongdoing by Ms. Braly. The investigator only talked to three people as part of his minimal investigation into the incident on December 5, 2016: Ms. Braly; Deputy Abato, who had only secondhand knowledge; and the Student. It is remarkable that Mr. Starin did not interview Ms. Braly’s co-teacher or her paraprofessional, both of whom were in the classroom that day, or the Student’s parents. The overall level of the investigation is consistent with the degree of seriousness of the events. That is, there was a slight breach of protocol, but no probability of harm to the Student or others at the School. The Board decided that the incident nonetheless warranted some discipline. The School Board notified Ms. Braly that a letter of reprimand would be issued and she would be suspended for three days without pay. Although this was a fairly low level of discipline, Ms. Braly has challenged it; the matter is currently in arbitration. Notwithstanding the discipline imposed, the Board has re-hired Ms. Braly for the 2018-2019 school year in the same position she has held for the past seven years. In fact, she has continued teaching at the School since the December 5, 2016, incident. She is an effective teacher and has not had any other disciplinary actions against her, and the School recognizes her as an effective ESE teacher. The Commissioner also seeks to discipline Ms. Braly, noting that she failed to report the incident and did not adequately secure the toy gun. Both of these allegations are true, whether they violate any particular policy or not. The Commissioner proposes a letter of reprimand, suspension of Ms. Braly’s Educator Certificate for six months, and two years of probation. However, based on the best evidence available, Ms. Braly’s conduct was both reasonable and essentially benign. If any sanction against Ms. Braly was warranted, it should be minimal at worst.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Brooke Braly, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Linda Alexsuk, should be returned to annual contract by the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Linda Alexsuk, has been employed as a teacher by the Petitioner since the 1974-75 school year and has taught kindergarten in the Hernando County school district from the school year 1976-77 through the school year 1988-89. Linda Alexsuk was employed as a teacher by the Petitioner at the Moton School during the school year 1974-75 until the end of the school year 1988-89. Yvonne Brewer has been the principal at Moton School for 11 years during all of which Linda Alexsuk was a kindergarten teacher at Moton School. Linda Alexsuk received her first annual contract to teach at the Moton School from the Hernando County school district for the 1974-75 school year, and after four consecutive years of annual contracts, received a continuing contract of employment for the 1978-79 school year. Linda Alexsuk received annual evaluations that were conducted by the principal of the Moton School, Yvonne Brewer, beginning in 1980, and continuing up through the 1988-89 school year. In the annual evaluation for the 1980-81 school year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Average or better in every area except Behavioral Management, where she was evaluated Below Average. Early in the school year 1981-82 the Hernando County School Board employed an independent consultant, Dr. Clint Van Nagel, to observe Linda Alexsuk's classroom, which observation took place during one of her teaching sessions. Following the observation Dr. Van Nagel provided to Linda Alexsuk by letter ten to twelve suggestions of methods which could be used by her to improve her behavior management. In the annual evaluation for the 1981-82 school year, using a different form than in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area except four (Planning, Techniques, Student and Classroom Management, and Student Response) in which Improvement Required was indicated. In the annual evaluation for the 1982-83 school year, using a similar form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area except three (Techniques, Student and Classroom Management, and Student Response) in which Improvement Required was indicated. In the annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area except two (Student and Classroom Management and Student Response) in which Improvement Required was indicated. In the annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area, including Student and Classroom Management and Student Response. In the annual evaluation for the 1985-86 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area, including Student and Classroom Management and Student Response. In the annual evaluation for the 1986-87 school year, using an identical form to that used in the previous year, Yvonne Brewer evaluated Linda Alexsuk as Satisfactory in every area, including Student and Classroom Management and Student Response. The first disciplinary action ever instituted against Linda Alexsuk was a written reprimand attached to the annual evaluation for the 1987-88 school year, dated March 25, 1988. Yvonne Brewer sought legal advice on how to return Linda Alexsuk to annual contract status before she issued the written reprimand in March of 1988. Yvonne Brewer believed that return to annual contract was a prerequisite to transferring the Respondent to another school in the district. With that goal in mind, Yvonne Brewer conducted the annual observation and evaluation of Linda Alexsuk for the school year 1987-88 on March 25, 1988. The Respondent was informed that improvement was required in the areas of Techniques, Student and Classroom Management, and Student Response. In addition, the written reprimand from Yvonne Brewer to Linda Alexsuk was attached to the 1987-88 annual observation form, setting forth a chronological list of alleged written warnings which had previously been given to The Respondent concerning discipline. The reprimand set forth a period of time in which Yvonne Brewer expected to see improvement in Respondent's teaching performance. The time period by which marked improvement was required was until the last week of May 1988. The reprimand also stated that Linda Alexsuk would be closely observed and supervised during the 1988-89 school year and further disciplinary action (possible termination) would be considered at that time. At the time of the written reprimand, Yvonne Brewer scheduled a team observation of Linda Alexsuk. The team was to consist of Yvonne Brewer, Betty Durden and the Moton School primary specialist, during which observation Yvonne Brewer wished to see improvement in her performance. Subsequent to that date, the primary specialist, Karen Rice, was removed from the team, at her request, and Martin Yungmann was added to the team. A team consisting of Yvonne Brewer, Martin Yungmann and Betty Durden was then scheduled to observe Linda Alexsuk's class on May 4, 1988. At the time of the May 4, 1988, observation, Martin Yungmann was the district director of curriculum for the Hernando County school system. He holds a master's degree in education with 27 years of experience in the education profession. In addition, Martin Yungmann was certified to observe teachers' performance using the Florida Performance Measurement System (hereinafter referred to as F.P.M.S.). At the time of the May 4, 1988, observation, Betty Durden was the supervisor of elementary curriculum for the Hernando County school district, which position she had held for six years. Betty Durden holds a master's degree in curriculum and instruction and has 29 years of experience in the education profession. Betty Durden has also been certified as an observer using the F.P.M.S. Yvonne Brewer is certified to observe teachers using the F.P.M.S. and, in fact, because of her position as principal acts as an observer approximately 30-35 times per year. The F.P.M.S. is an objective system which is used by all school districts in the state of Florida, except the Dade County school district, for the purpose of conducting observations in the master teacher program. In addition, the system is used to observe teachers in the beginning teacher program in 50 school districts in the state of Florida. In total, the F.P.M.S. is used to observe approximately eight thousand teachers per year in Florida. The F.P.M.S. is not ordinarily used to evaluate an experienced teacher and it is not designed as a disciplinary evaluation. On May 4, 1988, Yvonne Brewer, Betty Durden and Martin Yungmann conducted an observation of Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form. Following the observation, a conference was held between Linda Alexsuk, Martin Yungmann, Betty Durden and Yvonne Brewer to discuss the team's observation. On May 11, 1989, and May 25, 1989, Yvonne Brewer conducted additional observations of Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form. Following those observations, Yvonne Brewer met with Respondent to discuss her observations. During those observations Yvonne Brewer observed the same recurring problems which had been identified in the May 4, 1988, observation. Following these observations some suggestions for improvement of her deficiencies were offered to Linda Alexsuk. Respondent followed up on some of those suggestions. She also consulted with other teachers and reviewed books and materials on her own. On June 2, 1988, Yvonne Brewer, Betty Durden and Martin Yungmann again observed Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form. During that observation all three team members observed recurring problems which had been identified during the May 4, 1988, observation and saw only one attempt, that being the giving of more directions, to implement the suggestions that the team had made following the May 4, 1988, observation. Following the observation on June 2, 1988, a conference was held between Linda Alexsuk, Yvonne Brewer and Martin Yungmann, during which the team members discussed with Respondent the problems that they had observed. One of the suggestions made by the observation team following the June 2, 1988, observation was for Linda Alexsuk to seek assistance at the Teacher Education Center (hereinafter referred to as TEC). In response Linda Alexsuk checked the list of course titles that were available for the summer at TEC, but took no classes because she was unable to get some of the classes she thought might be useful based upon the course titles. Instead, Ms. Alexsuk went back over some books that she had at home. As part of the kindergarten curriculum, the kindergarten classes were to be taught a series of 20 words called the GINN words, which words are used in the first primer book at the first grade level. The kindergarten students were required to master a minimum of 80% of these words. During the May 4, 1988, observation, Yvonne Brewer moved around the room and quickly and informally tested ten children. None of the ten children could give her the words in the manner requested. After the observation Yvonne Brewer decided to have Linda Alexsuk's class tested in the GINN words by the Moton School primary specialist. Karen Rice is the primary specialist at Moton School. As primary specialist Karen Rice is responsible for the implementation of Florida's prep law in the school and for monitoring the education that is being received by the students to guarantee that each student is receiving the education he/she personally needs. The primary specialist is also responsible for testing children who are referred by teachers who believe the students may need special attention either because they are exceptional or have learning problems. On May 9, 1988, Karen Rice, at Yvonne Brewer's request, conducted a special achievement level test of the GINN words for children in Linda Alexsuk's class. At the time the test was given by Karen Rice, the majority of the students should have been at the 80% or better level. The results of the test Karen Rice conducted showed that of the 26 children in Linda Alexsuk's class, 22 did not know 80% of the words, 19 did not know 50% of the words, and 15 students knew 25% or less of the words. On November 17, 1988, Martin Yungmann observed Linda Alexsuk's class using the F.P.M.S. form, during which observation Yungmann once again saw no new instruction. In addition, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plan book, and the lesson plan did not indicate the activities that were actually taught or the instruction, goals or objectives that Ms. Alexsuk was attempting to get across to the students. Following the observation, Martin Yungmann discussed with Linda Alexsuk his observations and told Respondent that he had still not observed actual new skill instruction after three observations and that he had observed recurring problems from previous observations. During the conference Martin Yungmann indicated to Linda Alexsuk that he wanted to observe her class again primarily to observe the teaching of a new skill. On November 18, 1988, Linda Alexsuk, by note, notified Yvonne Brewer, who in turn notified Martin Yungmann, that Respondent would like to set Wednesday, November 30, 1988, as the date for Martin Yungmann to return to observe her class. When Martin Yungmann arrived on November 30, 1988, for the scheduled observation, Respondent's class was not in session in the room, so the observation had to be rescheduled. On December 5, 1988, Yvonne Brewer conducted her required annual observation of Linda Alexsuk's class, rating Respondent's overall performance as unacceptable. During the observation, Yvonne Brewer observed recurring problems from previous observations. Following the December 5, 1988, observation, Yvonne Brewer met with Linda Alexsuk and discussed her observation of Respondent's performance. On March 2, 1989, Betty Durden observed Linda Alexsuk's class, using the F.P.M.S. observation form. During the observation, Betty Durden observed recurring problems discussed with Respondent previously and, in fact, Betty Durden noted that the category of management of student conduct was worse that day than during previous observations. Following the observation, Betty Durden met with Linda Alexsuk to discuss the observation. On March 7, 1989, Martin Yungmann observed Linda Alexsuk's class. Prior to this observation, Yungmann had specifically instructed Respondent that he wanted to observe actual new skill instruction. Although Respondent presented new skill instruction, she had to practically read the instructions for the lesson to the students from note cards. Ms. Alexsuk did this in an attempt to satisfy Yungmann's purpose for the observation. During the March 7, 1988, observation, Martin Yungmann observed recurring problem areas which had been discussed with Respondent. Following the observation, Martin Yungmann discussed with Linda Alexsuk his observation and the recurring problems that he had observed. On March 9, 1989, Yvonne Brewer was scheduled to observe Linda Alexsuk's class. However, after approximately twenty minutes, Respondent approached Ms. Brewer and stated that she was not feeling well and requested permission to leave early to go to the doctors. During the shortened observation period, Ms. Brewer completed the Hernando County Classroom Observation form, the objective portion of which was taken from the F.P.M.S. form. This evaluation evidenced a recurring problem with student misconduct and student management. The comprehensive test of basic skills (hereinafter referred to as C.T.B.S.) is a standardized test which is given to all students in grades K through 9 in the seventh month of the school year. In addition, C.T.B.S. is an indicator that can be used to evaluate a teacher's performance in a class where children are randomly assigned, as they are in Hernando County. The C.T.B.S. is made up of two areas: math and reading. Ideally, since the test is given in the seventh month of the school year, kindergarten students should score at the K.7 level on the test. Following the 1988-89 school year, and in preparation for the formal hearing in this case, Betty Durden combined the figures for class performance on the C.T.B.S. for all 38 kindergarten teachers in Hernando County. She did this at Yvonne Brewer's request. The range of median class scores on the math portion of the C.T.B.S. for all 38 teachers was K.6 to 2.0. Linda Alexsuk's class median was K.6. There were three teachers at that lowest level of K.6. One teacher was not reappointed; one teacher had a class comprised of students repeating kindergarten. The third was Respondent's class. The range of median class scores on the total reading portion of the C.T.B.S. for all 38 teachers was K.S to 2.1. Linda Alexsuk's class median was 1.0. The total reading portion of the C.T.B.S. is made up of four subparts: visual recognition, source recognition, oral comprehension and vocabulary. In certain subparts of the total reading test, such as consonant recognition, Linda Alexsuk's class scored very low. Of eight consonants tested, Respondent's class had the lowest recognition scores in the district on three of the consonants. Although all classes in Hernando County are assigned to teachers in the same fashion (boy/girl/black/white), Linda Alexsuk was not as effective as most other teachers in maintaining classroom control. One of the major problems which observers of Linda Alexsuk's class noted was a recurring problem of student management/class control. Although Respondent received suggestions on methods of gaining control, including those from a special consultant hired to assist in her class, Ms. Alexsuk had difficulty keeping her students on task on a regular basis. Control is one of the major domains of an effective teacher. If a teacher lacks control, as was evidenced in Linda Alexsuk's class, there will be an effect on the learning environment in that room which will influence the ability of the average student to learn in that room. Linda Alexsuk sought the assistance of other peer teachers in preparing for her observations over the last two school years, and she practiced the lessons. In fact, she had one video taped. However, she received inadequate assistance from Yvonne Brewer and other administrators to effectively improve on her areas of weakness. Linda Alexsuk suffered from nervousness which also affected her performance during observations. This was particularly a problem after the written reprimand because Respondent believed that "she was under the gun" and that her job was in jeopardy. The F.P.M.S. forms from all of the observations were sent to the University of South Florida to be computer analyzed and compared to establish norms for the state of Florida. This was done after the recommendation to return Respondent to annual contract was made and was done solely in preparation for this hearing. The results of these analyses are not accepted or credited because they were not contemplated within the "good and sufficient reasons" alleged for the return of Ms. Alexsuk to annual contract. The analysis of the C.T.B.S. data performed by Betty Durden is likewise not credited as evidence of the alleged "good and sufficient reasons" because it was performed after the recommendation and solely for use as after- the-fact proof of the allegations. Linda Alexsuk received a bachelor's degree in elementary education from the University of South Florida in 1972 and a master's degree in educational administration in 1981. Ms. Alexsuk holds a teaching certificate from the Florida Department of Education authorizing her to teach students from the early childhood level through fifth grade. A teacher relies on the annual evaluation to gauge how she is performing and whether she is meeting the expectations of her superiors. Linda Alexsuk relied upon the satisfactory evaluations she received for three consecutive years to conclude that she was meeting the expectations of her principal, and she first became aware that Yvonne Brewer was unhappy with her classroom performance in March of 1988. Yvonne Brewer utilized the F.P.M.S. as an instrument of discipline to document the case for returning the Linda Alexsuk to annual contract commencing in March of 1988. Yvonne Brewer likewise approached the observations of Respondent and the other actions taken with the intention of justifying returning Ms. Alexsuk to annual contract. Inadequate offers of assistance were made to Linda Alexsuk to assist her in remediating her weak areas. The School Board did not establish good and sufficient reasons for returning Linda Alexsuk to annual contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Hernando County enter a Final Order denying the recommendation to return Linda Alexsuk to annual contract. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 November , 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2520 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed findings of fact: 1-3 (1-3); 7 (7); 14-19 (17-22) 22 (23); 32-34 (24-26); 36 (28); 37 (29); 39-59 (30-50); 62- 69 (51-58); and 72-74 (59-61). 2. Proposed findings of fact 4-6, 8-13, 20, 21, 35, 38, 60, 61, and 81-85 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 23-31, 71, and 75-80 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 70 and 86-88 are unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Linda Alexsuk Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (66); 2 (67); 3-5 (4-6); 6-12 (8-14); 13 (68); 14 (69); 15-16 (15); and 17 (70). Proposed findings of fact 22, 24, and 27 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 18-21, 23, 25, and 26 are irrelevant or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jaszczak Attorney at Law Hogg, Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza-Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 David Brooks Kundin Attorney at Law Meyer, Brooks and Cooper 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dr. Dan McIntyre, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 34601 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner Duval County School Board should dismiss the Respondent for professional incompetence pursuant to the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941) as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Duval County School Board. The Respondent, Bobby Palmore, has been an employee of the Petitioner since the 1992-93 school year. The Respondent is a tenured teacher assigned as a guidance counselor. During the 1997-98 school year, the Respondent was a guidance counselor at North Shore Elementary School. The Principal at the school in 1997-98 was Larry Davis. Concerns regarding the Respondent’s work performance at North Shore were raised early in the school year regarding his participation with Intervention Teams. An Intervention Team is formed to assist a guidance counselor with a particular student. The team meets when requested by the guidance counselor. Notwithstanding that the Intervention Team convened at the Respondent’s request, he missed the meeting scheduled for September 29, 1997. His erratic attendance at other Intervention Team meetings was of concern to the Assistant Principal, Martha Johnson, and the Principal. Ms. Johnson spoke with the Respondent about this, and Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about his attendance at these meetings. Respondent’s attendance did not improve. The Respondent’s erratic attendance at Intervention Team Meetings was unsatisfactory performance of his duties and showed a lack of understanding of the subject matter. The Respondent repeatedly interrupted classroom teachers with unannounced and unscheduled calls and visits to their classrooms. This disrupted their classes, and they complained to administrators about Respondent’s conduct. These interruptions were frequently to obtain information regarding students who were being staffed for one reason or another, an activity coordinated by the guidance counselor. The Respondent was officially counseled about these interruptions by Ms. Johnson, but continued to interrupt classes and cause disruptions. This was unsatisfactory job performance and showed the Respondent’s failure to follow directions, plan his activities effectively, and manage his time well. These are considerations in Competency 2 of the Evaluation criteria. The Respondent was asked by Ms. Johnson to make a sign to direct parents and others to a December 12, 1997, Child Study Team (CST) meeting. He did not do so. This also showed the Respondent’s inability to follow direction. On January 13, 1998, the Respondent told Deborah Nurse, an employee of the school, in a rude and loud voice, that she was not to use the copying machine that was outside his office. Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent in writing regarding his behavior on January 16, 1998. On January 14, 1998, at a CST meeting, Ms. Slaughter asked the Respondent for a cumulative folder on a student. The Respondent had been asked to the meeting because of his lack of cooperation regarding the folder. The Respondent accused Ms. Slaughter of not respecting him in the meeting, and insisted that she ask him again for the folder. The Respondent’s actions were embarrassing to the professionals present at the meeting and showed a lack of professionalism on the part of the Respondent. He was counseled in writing by Ms. Johnson about his conduct. On January 15, 1998, a meeting was held to discuss a student between Ms. Johnson, Mrs. Shabazz, and the Respondent. Mrs. Shabazz indicated that a pertinent document was missing from the student’s folder that could effect his educational program and result in a loss of funding for the school. It was Respondent’s responsibility to maintain the student’s records in the guidance office. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about his responsibilities in maintaining records and their importance to the school. She offered to assist the Respondent in reviewing the cumulative folders prior to their processing. The Respondent was responsible for preparation of materials for and participation in CST meetings on students. The Respondent placed students on the CST agenda without completing the data in their folder. This failure interfered with the proper and timely placement of students, and evidenced an unsatisfactory performance of a basic part of the Respondent’s job. As a result of the complaints about the Respondent’s work and conduct, a Success Plan was developed. This plan outlined areas in which the Respondent was not performing satisfactorily, identified objectives for improving his performance, and strategies to meet the objectives. A team was created to assist the Respondent including Mr. Davis, Ms. Johnson, the Respondent’s supervisor in guidance services, and the professional development facilitator. The Intervention Team had decided that team members should receive a response from the Respondent within three days. This time limit was incorporated in the Respondent’s Success Plan; however, the Respondent did not submit the CST packets within the time limits. In addition, the Respondent’s tone in speaking with the teachers was such that they complained to Ms. Johnson about the Respondent. Ms. Johnson counseled the Respondent about the lateness of his submittals and his interactions which the teachers. The Respondent did not improve his conduct that directly resulted in student’s needs not being met. The Respondent continued to be late to or to miss meetings and scheduled classroom visits. On February 4, 1998, he was late to a classroom visit. He cancelled a classroom visit he had scheduled. He did not follow the weekly calendar of guidance activities as required in his Success Plan. On February 4, 1998, Mr. Davis met with the Respondent to discuss the proper procedures for conducting a CST meeting as a means of assisting the Respondent. On February 6, 1998, Mr. Davis counseled the Respondent about his continued interruption of classes, and the Respondent forgot about a scheduled guidance session and did not attend, until reminded by Ms. Dennis. On February 6, 1998, Ms. Anderson met with the Respondent to discuss the guidance program and to offer assistance to him. She suggested that he use a weekly, hour-by- hour calendar to plan his time and activities. She also counseled with him about using a lesson plan for a small group session to provide a clearly defined objective for the session. Ms. Anderson directed the Respondent to follow-up with her in a week. The Respondent did not follow-up with Ms. Anderson or follow any of her advice. On February 9, 1998, Mr. Davis observed the Respondent conduct a meeting with staff regarding the Florida Writes Test. The Respondent’s conduct of the meeting was unsatisfactory. Issues were left unresolved and staff members were confused about the presentation. Some of the material presented was inconsistent with the information in the manual. Mr. Davis wrote the Respondent about these matters, and referred the Respondent to his Success Plan. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to provide proper parental notification of a CST meeting pursuant to district guidelines. On February 9, 1998, the Respondent failed to make to two-scheduled classroom visitations. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent missed a scheduled classroom visitation. The Respondent was not following a weekly calendar of activities, and his performance was unsatisfactory and contrary to the Success Plan. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent attempted to counsel the wrong child about the death of the child’s mother, and was prevented from doing so by the teacher. This reflected poorly on the Respondent’s attention to his duties, and his professionalism. On February 10, 1998, the Respondent was provided a list of counselors at other schools who had agreed to let the Respondent attend classroom guidance or CST meetings at their schools. The Respondent was late and showed a lack of interest while attending a classroom guidance session at Lake Forrest. On February 11, 1998, Mr. Davis observed a CST meeting at North Shore. It was evident that the parents had not received the required seven days' notice of the meeting. The Respondent had not conducted the pre-conferences, and had not coordinated the scheduling with the teachers. The Respondent did not have the proper forms in the cumulative folders, and had not conducted any classroom observations in preparation for the CST meeting. In sum, the Respondent’s performance showed a complete lack of competence and knowledge of his duties as a guidance counselor. On February 11, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit. On February 12, 1998, the Respondent missed his scheduled classroom guidance visit because he was late in arriving. On February 12, 1998, The Respondent discovered a coding error on the Florida Writes Test. He reported the error to Mr. Davis and accused the teacher of coding the test incorrectly. Davis directed the Respondent to correct the mistake and notify the testing department regarding the possible problem. The Respondent did not correct the test as directed, but placed a note on the box and resealed it to be mailed. The Respondent’s actions violated the testing procedures, and he did not do as he had been directed. On February 17, 1998, Ms. Johnson counseled with the Respondent concerning his failure to respond to student and staff needs. She advised him he was not meeting his Success Plan goals, and students were not receiving services they needed. The Respondent refused to counsel with a developmentally disabled student who had been sent to guidance by his teacher. The proper paper work had been completed for the student to participate in the group counseling session; however, the Respondent refused to allow the student to participate, chasing the student around the room telling him to "get out." The student was confused and embarrassed. Ms. Johnson, who was observing the session, and took charge of the student by having him sit with her, resolved the situation. The Respondent's actions demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the role of a guidance counselor, sensitivity for students, and ability to conduct a class or counseling session. On March 9, 1998, Mr. Davis completed the Respondent’s Annual Performance Evaluation. The evaluation consisted of eight competency areas. The Respondent received an unsatisfactory rating in three of the competency areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The facts as presented at hearing confirm the evaluation, and show that the Respondent was clearly incapable of performing his job duties. He lacked knowledge of his duties or how to perform them. He was insensitive to the students' needs and did not meet them. He did not follow the direction of his Principal and did not maintain a professional relationship with his coworkers and superiors. After receiving this evaluation, the Respondent continued in the same pattern of behaviors. He did not prepare and use a calendar of activities. He continued to provide materials late. He refused to assist a parent obtain the proper papers to enable the parent’s child to enroll in another school. He continued to disturb classes. He failed to notify staff of CST meetings at which they needed to attend. He took seven months to complete the paper work to have one child tested. In fact, there were several students who were awaiting CST processing at the end of the year. The Respondent was treated fairly and provided assistance by the school’s administration. Based upon his unsatisfactory evaluation in 1997-98, the Respondent was administratively transferred to J.E.B. Stuart Middle School the following year for an additional year of observation of in-service training. Carol Daniels is the Principal of Stuart Middle School. She met with the Respondent and advised him that he was starting with a clean slate at her school. School Board Policy required that Ms. Daniels confer privately with the Respondent and develop a Success Plan. She met with the Respondent on August 24, 1998. The Success Plan outlined goals and objectives to improve the Respondent’s performance as a guidance counselor. A support team was created to assist him. Soon after the school year began, Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent about the proper method to request student records. She arranged for him to attend New Counselor Training on or about August 31, 1998. The Respondent was negative and adversarial about being requested to attend the training. He officially complained about the request, but upon review the Regional Superintendent determined that Ms. Daniels’ request was not arbitrary and was appropriate. The Respondent was counseled by Mr. Gilmore, the Vice Principal, on the need to process gifted students under the ESE program. He had failed to process several of these students, and he was given a deadline for processing these students. On September 8, 1998, the Respondent did not exit the building during a fire drill. Ms. Daniels counseled him in writing about the need for everyone to evacuate the building during drills. Mr. Gilmore counseled in writing the Respondent about the lack of lead-time in requesting information about students, and his abruptness and tone in making requests. On October 26, 1998, Linda Bailey requested an ESE/CST Agenda from the Respondent. The Respondent replied he was too busy to provide the information. On October 28, 1998, Ms. Bailey again asked for the information in writing. The Respondent did not provide the information. On October 26, 1998, Ms. Bailey also requested progress reports for the ESE students who would be reevaluated on November 9, 1998. These reports had been used at Stuart Middle School for many years as a best practice strategy. The Respondent advised that he had no intent of providing the progress reports and refused to do so. On October 26, 1998, the Respondent accused the District ESN Admissions Representative of taking ESE forms from his office. His tone and manner were threatening and confrontational. On October 27, 1998, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent that he would have an evaluation and conference on October 30, 1998, pursuant to district guidelines. On October 28, 1998, Charlotte Robbins, ESE Interventionist, met with the Respondent to discuss three students. It was the Respondent’s responsibility to provide information to Ms. Robbins in a timely manner. The Respondent did not provide Ms. Robbins the necessary information prior to the meeting. The Respondent also invited parents to the meeting without advising Ms. Robbins. On November 2, 1998, Norma Peters, a speech therapist, advised Ms. Daniels that she had requested the Respondent to provide her a list of students to be evaluated two to three weeks before CST meetings. The Respondent told Ms. Peters he would not be able to provide the information as requested, although previous guidance counselors had provided Ms. Peters the names three to four weeks in advance of meetings. Although Ms. Daniels spoke with the Respondent about Ms. Peter’s concern, the Respondent did not provide the information as requested. On November 5, 1998, the two eighth grade counselors met with the Respondent to discuss the need for him to be a team member. They raised the fact that he did not answer the phone, assist parents, or help the guidance clerk when necessary. They also advised him to improve his communication with the ESE teachers, CST members, speech pathologist, and interventionist. A CST meeting was held on November 9, 1998, and only half the parents had been noticed and invited to come to the meeting. The Respondent had been responsible for contacting the parents in compliance with district policies. This failure prevented the CST team from addressing the needs of students. Not only did it potentially deny students services, it frustrated teachers, staff, and parents. On November 24, 1998, the Respondent interrupted class instruction by bringing a parent into the class who had missed an earlier appointment with the teacher. On November 25, 1998, Kathee Cook telephoned the Respondent regarding contacting children for the December 9, 1998, CST meeting. The Respondent refused to contact the parents of the students because ESE procedures required that Ms. Cook contact him seven days prior to the designated date. Ms. Cook reported this to Ms. Daniels, who discussed it with the Respondent, explaining that the requirement was for at least seven days notice. Ms. Daniels advised him that he was responsible for notifying parents for CST meetings, and his position potentially jeopardized notice to the parents as required by district policy. Ms. Daniels directed the Respondent to give the Vice Principal all of the parental notices by December 2, 1998. On December 2, 1998, the Respondent gave Mr. Gilmore ten notice letters; however, he did not provide notices to eleven other parents. The Respondent excused his failure by asserting his interpretation of the seven-day rule. On November 25, 1998, Ms. Daniels advised the Respondent that he had made little improvement in his performance. She discussed with him performance of his duties; and being courteous and respectful to faculty, staff, and parents. The Respondent did not accept the evaluation and was confrontational and adversarial with Ms. Daniels. He refused Ms. Daniels' offer of assistance. On or about January 5, 1999, the Respondent placed seven notice letters to parents in Mr. Gilmore’s box for the January 11, 1999, CST meeting. Not only were the letters late, if intended for the January 11th meeting, but they were addressed to the parents of children being staffed in the January 22, 1999, meeting. The Respondent failed to discontinue ESE services to a student contrary to the parent’s request on three separate occasions, to include at least one request in writing. The Respondent’s failure resulted in the matter being re-assigned to the chair of the guidance department to discontinue the services in accordance with the parent’s wishes. The Respondent left the campus without following the procedures for leaving early. These requirements had been explained during orientation and were in the teachers’ handbook. Ms. Daniels had to notify the Respondent in writing of his oversight. On January 25, 1999, Ms. Daniels notified the Respondent pursuant to the collective bargaining that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He was advised that his performance in Competencies 1, 2, 4, 8 and 9 needed improvement by March 15, 1999. On February 2, 1999, the Respondent was notified that this memorandum would be placed in his personnel file. The Respondent met with parents who were not enrolled in Stuart Middle School during the middle of the school day. Ms. Daniels advised him in writing on February 11, 1999, that this was inappropriate, and he should limit meeting to parents or students enrolled or engaged in enrolling at Stuart. On March 10, 1999, the Respondent made a presentation to an ESE class. His Success Plan required him to schedule presentations during Advisor/Advisee time period. The Respondent’s presentation was arbitrary and he did not seek assistance from his support team. On March 11, 1999, Ms. Daniels completed the Respondent’s annual evaluation. The evaluation addressed nine competency areas. Th Respondent received an unsatisfactory in five of the nine areas, which constituted an overall unsatisfactory evaluation. The Respondent’s performance in Competency 1 (ability to plan and deliver instruction), Competency 2 (demonstrates knowledge of subject matter), Competency 4 (shows sensitivity to student needs by maintaining a positive school climate), Competency 8 (demonstrates a commitment to professional growth), and Competency 9 (shows evidence of professional characteristics) was unsatisfactory. Not only was his performance unsatisfactory, he continued to be unwilling to accept support and assistance. He failed to comply with many areas of his Success Plan and failed to perform his duties. On March 17, 1999, the Respondent interrupted Mrs. Bascombe’s class. Ms. Daniels counseled the Respondent in writing about class interruptions, and how to handle situations by checking the master schedule and placing notices in teacher mailboxes. On March 23, 1999, Ms. Daniels relieved the Respondent of his responsibilities for ESE students because of his poor performance and its impact on the students' welfare. He had failed to timely notify parents. He had failed to communicate with parents, the staff, faculty and the district. His failures had adversely affected the operations of the ESE program. The Respondent was assigned to handle seventh grade non-exceptional education students. Ms. Daniels had to direct the Respondent in writing to relinquish the ESE forms to his successor. On April 20, 1999, after being relieved of his ESE duties, he met with the mother of an ESE student who was then receiving services from his successor. The Respondent was treated fairly at Stuart Middle School. All of the personnel were ready and willing to provide him assistance. He was negative, and refused to co-operate or perform his duties as directed. On May 19, 1999, the Respondent was notified by the Superintendent that he was charged with professional incompetence. He was advised that he would be discharged from the Duval County School System if the charge was sustained by the School Board. He was advised of his right to request a hearing within two days of receipt of the letter dated May 19, 1999. On June 15, 1999, Ms. Daniels provided John Heavner, Director of Professional Standards, written notice that the Respondent had not completed the requirements of his Success Plan. The Respondent requested a formal hearing by letter on July 10, 1999. Notwithstanding that this was late, he was afforded a hearing. On August 5, 1999, the Respondent was notified that he would be suspended without pay effective August 12, 1999. The Respondent was advised that the suspension would be considered at the September 7, 1999, regular meeting of the School Board. The Respondent is charged with incompetence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered denying the Respondent’s disciplinary appeal and demands set forth in his pleadings, and dismissing the Respondent for incompetence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Lashanda R. Johnson, Esquire City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bobby G. Palmore 863 Poydras Lane, West Jacksonville, Florida 32218 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 321399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d) or (1)(f), Florida Statutes (2019), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.1 1 Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Florida Statutes herein are to the 2019 version, which was in effect when the actions alleged in the Administrative Complaint took place.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the chief educational officer of the state, who recommends members for appointment to the Education Practices Commission—the statewide commission with the authority to discipline Florida educators. See §§ 1001.10(1), 1012.79(1), and 1012.795(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). Respondent, Calvin Chin, holds State of Florida Educator’s Certificate 737639, covering the areas of Educational Leadership and Mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2026. Respondent has served as an educator for 27 years, primarily with the Marion County School District (“District”). He was first employed by the District as a math teacher at Dunnellon High School (“Dunnellon”) in 1994, where he continued for 12 years. Respondent was promoted to dean of students at Dunnellon in 2002 and served in that capacity through 2012. During that time-frame, Respondent was also a part-time math instructor at a local community college. Respondent served as dean of students for College Park Elementary School from 2012 through 2016, when he returned to Dunnellon to continue teaching math for college readiness and dual enrollment math for students enrolled for college-level credit math instruction. Respondent also had a 19-year career with the U.S. Marine Corps. He originally enlisted in 1978 after graduating from high school, then joined the Marine Reserves while he pursued his college education. Respondent graduated from the University of Florida in 1983 and became a commissioned officer through the Reserve Officer Training Corps (“ROTC”) program in December of that year. Respondent served in the Marine Corps through 1994. In 1996, Respondent established the Young Marines at Dunnellon, a program similar to ROTC that teaches discipline and military structure to youth. Respondent is passionate about teaching and shaping the lives of young people. Respondent has never had any disciplinary action taken against his license or against him by either the District or any school at which he has taught. Relationship with Joanne Mandic Respondent and Joanne Mandic are not married, but have been in a relationship for 19 years. Respondent and Ms. Mandic have lived together as a couple for over 18 years. The couple has one child together, C.C., who lives with her parents. C.C. was 13 years old and home-schooled by Ms. Mandic at all times relevant hereto. Ms. Mandic has another child, Nyasha Mandic-Mandaza, from a prior relationship. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza was 22 years old at all times relevant hereto. She does not live with her mother and Respondent; however, on the date of the incident, Ms. Mandic-Mandaza was staying at their home. October 25, 2019, Incident On Friday, October 25, 2019, Respondent came home from Dunnellon and prepared himself an alcoholic drink. At some point during the evening, he asked Ms. Mandic what she was preparing for dinner and she responded that she was too tired to cook. Respondent became upset that Ms. Mandic was not preparing dinner. By this time, Respondent had consumed several alcoholic drinks, and he and Ms. Mandic got into a verbal altercation about dinner. During the verbal altercation, Respondent came out of his bedroom holding his handgun. He said to Ms. Mandic, “Don’t piss me off. I am a Marine and I know how to shoot,” or similar words. Respondent “racked” the gun, which made a distinctive sound audible to Ms. Mandic. Afterward, Respondent returned to his bedroom. Ms. Mandic is familiar with the gun and familiar with Respondent’s habit of storing the gun and ammunition separately. According to Ms. Mandic, the gun was unloaded when Respondent brought it out of the bedroom. Ms. Mandic testified that she knew the gun was unloaded and that she was not in fear of Respondent. Ms. Mandic testified that this incident was not indicative of her relationship with Respondent and that he has never been violent toward either her or the children. She further testified that there has been no similar incident since that date. C.C. was home in her bedroom and heard, but did not see, the altercation between her parents. No evidence was introduced regarding C.C.’s reaction to the incident or its effect on her. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza both heard and saw the altercation between Respondent and her mother. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza had come to the house after work and was preparing to leave for the evening, when she stepped into the hallway in response to the verbal altercation. She saw Respondent walking down the hallway with his handgun. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza was in fear as Respondent appeared to be approaching her in the hallway; however, Respondent passed by her and moved towards her mother, who was in the kitchen. Ms. Mandic-Mandaza retreated to a bedroom where she called the police to report the incident, then left the house shortly thereafter. Respondent’s Arrest In response to the 911 call, Marion County Deputy Sheriffs Joseph Diaz and Christopher White, as well as Sergeant Moore, were dispatched to the Chin home. Both Respondent and Ms. Mandic were interviewed by the officers. During his interview with the officers, Respondent was forthcoming about his actions. He demonstrated to the officers how he held and racked the gun, and repeated the statements he made as he held the gun. Ms. Mandic downplayed the incident when she was interviewed, describing Respondent’s actions as simply “showing us his handgun.” Deputy White also contacted Ms. Mandic-Mandaza via telephone and interviewed her, as well as meeting with her to take her statement. She was reticent to discuss the incident with Deputy White and expressed that she did not want to get Respondent in trouble. Respondent was arrested for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon Without the Intent to Kill and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, and was incarcerated from October 25 to November 2, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial Circuit filed an “Announcement of No Information” on the allegation of Use of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony and charged Respondent solely with Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon (without Intent to Kill). On March 11, 2020, Respondent plead nolo contendere to the lesser charge of Improper Exhibition of a Firearm, which is a misdemeanor defined in section 790.10, Florida Statutes, and adjudication was withheld. Respondent received credit for eight days served, was placed on a year of probation, assessed court and prosecution costs of $350, and was required to submit to random alcohol screens at least two times per month during probation. Subsequent Events Following his incarceration, Respondent voluntarily participated in mental health counseling and alcohol evaluation. Respondent testified that he “talked about drinking” with the counselor. Respondent further testified that, since the incident, he has “not been drunk like that.” The District placed Respondent on administrative leave with pay through December 2020. Respondent was placed on administrative leave without pay in December 2020, but returned to teach at Dunnellon in March 2021 just before spring break. Following spring break, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the school moved classes to an online format and Respondent continued teaching in that format throughout the remainder of the 2020-2021 school year. Respondent remains employed by the District and is currently teaching at Dunnellon. Neither Dunnellon nor the District imposed any disciplinary action against Respondent due to the incident and his subsequent arrest. Respondent testified that neither any student nor any fellow teacher has questioned him or made any remark about the incident or his arrest. Petitioner introduced no evidence of any press coverage or community concern regarding the incident. Character Witnesses Stephen Ayers is the director of student assignment and school choice for the District. Mr. Ayers has worked in various educational capacities with the District for 27 years, including as a math teacher, dean, assistant principal, principal, and coordinator for the District. Mr. Ayers met Respondent in 1994 when they were both pursuing their graduate degrees. Mr. Ayers later worked at Dunnellon as assistant principal, then principal, while Respondent served as dean of students. In those capacities, Mr. Ayers was Respondent’s supervisor at Dunnellon. Mr. Ayers described Respondent as “an exemplary dean” and “a mentor with … youngsters.” Mr. Ayers was aware of Respondent’s October 25, 2019 arrest and “the basis and reason for that arrest.” Mr. Ayers testified that he has no doubt Respondent can continue to perform his duties effectively and does not consider Respondent’s effectiveness in the community to be diminished by that arrest. Bobby James retired from the District in 2018 after serving the District for 47 years as a teacher, coach, principal, school board member, and school board chairman for three terms. Mr. James was the principal at Dunnellon in 1994 and hired Respondent as a math teacher. Mr. James remained principal for 12 years and moved Respondent into the dean of student’s position. Mr. James initiated the Young Marines program at Dunnellon and chose Respondent as the first instructor in the program. After leaving Dunnellon for a position with the school board, Dunnellon remained a school in which Mr. James, as a school board member, exercised oversight authority. Mr. James frequently visited Dunnellon and met Respondent and administrative leaders there. Mr. James described Respondent’s performance as an educator and leader of young people as “exceptional,” especially in working with youth who have difficult life challenges. Mr. James was familiar with Respondent’s arrest and “had heard” that a firearm was involved in the October 25, 2019 incident. He was not aware of the specific statements alleged to have been made by Respondent to Ms. Mandic. During cross-examination, Mr. James admitted that, if Respondent had said, “Don’t piss me off, I have a gun and I know how to use it,” that would not be appropriate conduct for an educator, or for that matter, “for any person.” However, Mr. James testified that, given his 25 years of experience with Respondent in service to the District, even knowing the specifics of the incident, he believes Respondent can remain an effective educator. Mr. James testified that Respondent’s character with students and District employees is proven, and indicated that, if he were in a position to do so, Mr. James would rehire Respondent. Ryan Malloy met Respondent through the Young Marines program in middle school when Respondent was the commanding officer of the program (for both high school and middle school). Mr. Malloy left the Young Marines program before high school but has maintained a mentoring relationship with Respondent through his recent graduation from the University of Florida. Respondent taught Mr. Malloy the game of golf and the two play golf regularly. Mr. Malloy testified that Respondent has served as a constant mentor in his life; that when he is really struggling with something, he talks to Respondent. He related that Respondent encourages him to consider both sides of a situation and avoid quick judgments. Mr. Malloy was generally familiar with Respondent’s arrest and the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Mr. Malloy testified that Respondent’s effectiveness as a mentor has not been diminished by the incident. He testified that Respondent has helped him acknowledge his own mistakes and learn from them. Mr. Malloy stated that Respondent taught Mr. Malloy that true character is built by taking ownership of one’s mistakes and using them for self-improvement. Mr. Malloy believes that is an important trait for all teachers to be effective role models. Linda Malloy, Mr. Malloy’s mother, retired from the District in May 2019, was a fellow teacher with Respondent at Dunnellon for 24 years, and second in command of the Young Marines with Respondent for 10 years. She described Respondent as strict, honest, and fair. She admired his ability to reach students through Young Marines and help them turn their lives around when they were headed “down the wrong path.” Ms. Malloy was familiar with Respondent’s arrest and the fact that a gun was involved in the October 25, 2019 incident. Ms. Malloy testified that Respondent can remain an effective educator because she “believe[s] in his core values.” She trusted him with her own child and still would to this day. Ms. Malloy has not heard anyone in the education community suggest that Respondent should not continue to teach. Sharon Lambert has taught at Dunnellon for 22 years and currently teaches business technology and serves as the teachers’ union representative. Respondent was in charge of the Young Marines when Ms. Lambert began teaching at Dunnellon. Her impressions of Respondent as an educator are that he cares about his students, wants to help them succeed, and “would do anything to help them learn what he’s supposed to teach.” Ms. Lambert was familiar with Respondent’s arrest. She testified that the incident has not had any negative affect on his ability to teach his students. To her knowledge, since Respondent returned to the classroom, there has been “no talk amongst the students or the teachers” concerning the incident or Respondent’s ability to teach. Respondent also introduced a letter from Jay Easom, who served as president of the Dunnellon School Advisory Council (“SAC”) from 2007-2010 and is familiar with Respondent in that capacity, as well personal conversations with him. The letter relates as follows: I am writing on behalf of “Captain Chin.” I am acquainted with him for more than ten (10) years. I’ve had the opportunity to know him in his capacity of leadership at our local high school as well as our personal conversations detailing his desire to be responsible to his family. He always plans well and stands firmly in his commitment to reach his personal goals for the benefit of his family. I can’t tell you how surprised I was when [Respondent] shared with me the events of October 25, 2019 that resulted in him being charged. I instantly detected his regret and disappointment. The idea of [Respondent] bringing harm to anyone escapes my consideration especially in the handling of a firearm. My children attended and graduated from [Dunnellon]. I know [Respondent] in this period during my participation as president of the [SAC] from 2007-10. I learned more about [Respondent] when as a part of our meetings, he introduced proud young men and women to share their outlook for the future that had joined Young Marines. He provided a path of personal development for them and I am sure that his peers will tell you that his hard work, dedication, and friends in the community supported the program because of his commitment. I expect that [Respondent] has a plan to be sure that there will never again be such an event in his life as this. I hope that you may have the opportunity to give him further consideration as his employer, students, peers, and friends have over a very difficult year and a half. Thank you. Respondent also introduced the following letter from Jeffery Daniel Ratliff: To whom it may concern, Captain Calvin Chin has been, and still is, one of my largest influences throughout my life. I still remember the very first time I met him, and that was over 20 years ago. It was my first day in a new school, an entirely new state, at [Dunnellon]. While waiting with my parents in the front office to get registered for classes, in walks this Marine wearing freshly starched cammies with flickering silver and gold on his uniform, and it was at that moment that I decided to become a Marine. Over my high school career Captain Chin shaped and guided me in a way that only a true leader can. When my temper or overzealousness got the best of me, he did not hesitate to punish me but always ensured that a lesson was learned. When I was unable to understand the mathematic teachings of Mr. Gaitanis’ overeducated ramblings, Captain Chin would break it down simply for me and insist that I already knew how to do it. And he was right! When I left for Marine Corps bootcamp, he gave me some last-minute advice, but insisted that I would do fine … as long as I didn’t ask too many questions. He was right about that too. When I got back from Iraq and needed another Marine to vent to about what I saw, he was there for me. He wasn’t judgmental at all. After the Young Marines program was removed from the high school, he chose to keep it active and open it up for all ages from 8 to eighteen. He even encouraged me to come volunteer after I had gotten out of the Marines. I did not have the patience or understanding to deal with such young children at the time, but Captain Chin did. Even though I have two loving parents who are still together, and love me very much, I still refer to Captain Chin as my Adopted Asian Dad. I have seen this man motivate, influence and inspire so many young minds over the years that I lose count. As Dean at the high school, the kids who he had to punish still respected him and find him years later to tell him that they are doing so much better now, because he showed them respect first. It is impossible to fit everything that Captain Chin has done to help me, influence me on one page. Just know that this is one of the most selfless human beings I have ever met, that has committed his entire life to serving and helping others, and will continue to do so until he is no longer physically able. Respondent also introduced his final evaluation from the District for the 2020-2021 school year on which he received the rating of “Effective” on all four instructional practice domains in which he was assessed. Respondent became emotional during his testimony at the final hearing. Petitioner introduced, and played for the undersigned, body-camera footage from the responding officers on October 25, 2019. Respondent was ashamed and remorseful of his behavior on the night of the incident. Respondent was dismayed by his own behavior and it obviously pained him to watch the video footage.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(f), but, based on the Findings of Fact herein, including substantial factors in mitigation, take no action against Respondent’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2021. Lisa M. Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Anastasios Kamoutsas, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 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
The Issue Issues for consideration in this case include whether there exists an adequate factual basis for Petitioner Duval County School Board (the Board) to terminate Respondent's employment as a principal and teacher for those violations of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida, 1941, as amended (the Act), which are alleged by the Board's Notice of Dismissal; and whether there exists an adequate factual basis for the Education Practices Commission (EPC) to revoke or suspend Respondent's teaching certificate or otherwise discipline Respondent for violations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate number 263958, covering the areas of physical education and school principal (all levels). The certificate is valid through June 30, 2001. Respondent is a certified teacher who, on the basis of his long-term employment by the Board, has tenure as a result of the length of his service in a satisfactory capacity. Respondent was employed as the Principal at Sandalwood High School by the Board from 1988 through the spring semester of 1994. Commencing in the summer of 1994 and continuing through October 20, 1995, Respondent was employed by the Board as Principal at Forrest High School. Respondent has been removed from his position as Principal of Forrest High School, but continues as a salaried employee of the Board pending resolution of the charges which form the basis for this proceeding. During Respondent's tenure as Principal at Forrest High School, he supervised teachers Julie T. Lee, Kimberly L. Smith, Pamela W. Bean, and Karen E. Jones. Julie T. Lee, Teacher During the 1994-1995 school year, Lee was both the Student Activities Director and the Cheerleading Coach for Forrest High School. In addition, she taught two classes on the subject of ecology. As Student Activities Director, she had an office centrally located, apart from the classroom she used. In November of 1994, Respondent called Lee into his office. He shut and locked the door. He asked Lee to sit down in a chair that Lee noted had been turned and was out of place. She sat down. Respondent then went behind her and proceeded to rub her shoulders. Lee was uncomfortable and did not welcome or encourage Respondent's actions. On February 6, 1995, Respondent again called Lee into his office and shut and locked the door. After a conversation with Lee, Respondent approached Lee and said he need a hug. He proceeded to hug Lee without her consent. In May of 1995, while Lee was using the telephone in the Principal's office for a long distance call, Respondent returned unexpectedly, shut and locked the door, and sat down in a chair behind Lee. He proceeded to grab Lee about her hips and pull her down to sit in his lap. He told her if she would take care of him, she could have anything she wanted at the school. Lee got up, said she would take care of student activities and left. About a week later, Respondent encountered Lee outside her office and asked her if she had thought about his offer. Lee acted as if she didn't know what Respondent was talking about. Later, before the end of the school year, Respondent informed Lee that he was moving her office. The new location for Lee's job as Student Activities Director was a weight room near the school gym. The room was bright red, smelled of sweat, and was located in an out of the way place for purposes of student activities. Lee commenced using the new location prior to the end of the school year for a period of approximately four weeks. At the end of the four week period, Respondent came to Lee's office and told her that she had one hour in which to move. The new office was a former special education classroom at the other extreme end of the building, away from a central location, flooded with water and dirty. A few days thereafter, Respondent also told Lee that she would have to teach three out-of-field social studies classes in addition to the Cheerleading Coach and Student Activities Director jobs. Lee felt she could not do all three jobs under any circumstances. Further, she felt that teaching a majority of out- of-field classes would subject her to being surplussed the following year unless she became certified in those areas in the interim. Lee did not accept the justification that the additional class assignment was purely the result of budgetary constraints and felt that she was being subjected to retaliation for not meeting Respondent's sexual overtures. She talked with Mark Scott, a music teacher, about the matter on September 18, 1995. Scott had heard about difficulties that another teacher was having with Respondent. Scott revealed his discussion with the other teacher, Kimberly Smith, to Lee. Lee subsequently contacted Smith. Kimberly Smith, Teacher Sometime near the middle of the 1994-1995 school year, Respondent walked up behind Smith in the school library and massaged her shoulders. Smith did not welcome or invite Respondent's conduct. On or about June 14, 1995, Respondent asked Smith into his office and locked the door. After a conversation relating to her resignation as basketball coach, Respondent asked Smith for a hug. As Smith attempted to pull back from the hug, Respondent pulled Smith against his body and with his face on her neck told her that she smelled good. Respondent then told Smith to get out of there before he forgot who he was. The next school year, on September 18, 1995, Respondent approached Smith in the hallway near the library and after some conversation grabbed her arm, pulled her to him and requested that Smith come to his office and give him "some tender loving care." If she complied, Respondent promised to "see what I can do for you." Smith told Jon Nerf, an English teacher at Forrest High School, about the September 18, 1995 incident shortly after it occurred. Nerf's testimony establishes that Smith was emotionally upset by Respondent's action. Pamela W. Bean, Teacher In April of 1995, Respondent asked Pamela W. Bean, a teacher, to come into his office when she asked to talk with him. He closed the door. After she was seated and talking, Respondent told Bean that she "looked stressed." He stepped behind her and began to rub her shoulders. When Bean got up, Respondent told her that he "needed a hug." Bean, nonplussed by the unsolicited and unwelcome advance of Respondent, complied with a brief hug and left. The next day, a similar incident with Bean occurred in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent's back rub and hug overtures were unsolicited by Bean who complied again with Respondent's request for a hug. Karen Jones, Teacher In the spring of 1995, Karen E. Jones, another teacher, asked to speak with Respondent. He asked her into his office and closed the door. Respondent then told Jones "I need a hug" and proceeded to hug her. After hugging Jones, Respondent told her that "we need to do that more often." In the first half of September of 1995, Respondent asked Jones to come into a room near his office called "Trawick's Trough." After entering the room, he again asked for a hug and hugged Jones. Jones did not solicit or welcome the hug. Jones later confided prior to initiation of any formal charges against Respondent in her long-term friend, Susan Ingraham, who is a school board employee, regarding Respondent's overtures. Julie A. Gray, Teacher Julie A. Gray was a first year teacher of Spanish and the yearbook sponsor at Sandalwood High School during the 1991-1992 school year when Respondent was her supervisor and the Principal at that school. Respondent approached Gray in the hallway during the early part of that school term. Respondent told Grey that he liked to get hugs from his faculty members. Gray patted him lightly on the shoulders. Respondent then said,"oh, I didn't mean here. I meant in my office." Later in the school term, Gray went to report to Respondent that all the yearbooks had been sold. Gray found Respondent near the bookkeeper's office and started talking to him. He leaned over and tried to kiss her on the mouth. When she backed away, Respondent tried to hug Gray. She was embarrassed by the incident and informed Peggy Clark, a professional support staffer for new teachers, that Respondent had made remarks of a sexual nature to Gray. Gray's roommate was also informed by Gray regarding Respondent's attempt to kiss Gray. The Teachers As a result of Lee's conversation with Mark Scott, Lee subsequently compared experiences with Smith. Bean, assigned by Respondent to sit in the student activity office during one of Lee's social studies classes also had a discussion with Lee. The three, Lee, Smith and Bean, decided to lodge complaints with the school administration and did so in early October of 1995. Lee felt she had not choice if she did not want to lose her job. Smith would have reported Respondent's behavior toward her earlier, but felt that she was alone and could not succeed. Bean, likewise, had felt she was alone and would not be believed over the word of a principal. Jones learned about the other teachers and their grievances a couple of weeks following Respondent's last advance toward her and decided to join the others in making a complaint. Gray had considered bringing sexual harassment charges against Respondent in the spring of 1992, but felt it would simply be her word against Respondent. She decided to come forward with her allegations in response to requests by the Board's representative who had learned of Respondent's behavior in 1992 toward Gray. Based on their candor and demeanor while testifying, as well as the consistency of their testimony with earlier statements made by them to persons with whom they spoke following various incidents, the testimony of all five teachers, Lee, Smith, Bean, Jones, and Gray, is fully credited and establishes that Respondent's conduct toward them was intimidating and adversely affected their abilities and enthusiasm for teaching in such situations. Stefani Powell, Contract Manager Stefani Powell was a district supervisor for ARAMARK, the operator of the Board's food service in the school system during the 1994-95 school year. In her capacity, Powell managed 14 school cafeterias, including the one at Forrest High School. Respondent, as the Principal at Forrest, was a client of ARAMARK's, oversaw what happened in the cafeteria, and approved certain aspects of the cafeteria's functioning. In meetings with Powell in his office, Respondent began closing and later locking the doors, commencing in October of 1994. He initiated hugs with Powell at the end of these meetings. On approximately eight to 10 occasions, the last in January or February of 1995, Respondent hugged Powell. Initially, the hugs were light, but progressed and grew stronger with Respondent eventually placing his hand on Powell's back and pushing inward. On the last occasion, Respondent kissed Powell on the cheek. None of these attentions by Respondent was solicited by Powell and were unwelcome. Since Respondent's advances made Powell uncomfortable, she eventually confided in her supervisor who advised that Powell always take someone with her or ensure the presence of a third person at conferences with Respondent. Powell followed this practice with regard to future meetings with Respondent. After reading in the newspaper of the allegations of the teachers at Forrest High School, Powell told her mother, a school board employee, of her experiences with Respondent. As a result, Powell was put in touch with the Board's investigator and her complaint against Respondent followed. Due to her candor and demeanor at the final hearing, as well as consistency of her testimony with statements made by her to others, Powell's testimony is totally credited. Dishonesty In The Course Of Employment Carol Abrahams was a clerk one at Forrest High School during the 1994-1995 school year. She shared a social relationship with Respondent and his wife. In April of 1995, Respondent made Abrahams the Principal's secretary. Abrahams was a clerk one. A clerk three is the customary rating and higher paying position normally assigned duties as a Principal's secretary. Respondent sought to augment Abrahams' pay since she was paid less than a Principal's secretary would normally receive. Respondent directed the use of Community School funds to pay Abrahams for work after the normal school day hours. Commencing with the beginning of the 1995-1996 school year, Abrahams was paid $9.50 per hour for the hours of 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day that Community School functioned, Monday-Thursday, through September of 1995. Abrahams did not work during all the hours for which she claimed payment for the period of August 23, 1995 through September 28, 1995. Specifically, Abrahams went to an aerobics class conducted at Forrest High School from 3:30 until 4:30 p.m. almost every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday of each week during August and September, 1995. On three payroll hour certifications signed by Respondent, payment was made to Abrahams for a total of 16 hours during 16 days that were not actually worked at the times claimed. Respondent knew that Abrahams was attending the aerobics classes, but it was assumed by he and others that Abrahams would make up the missed hours. Abrahams testimony that she did school work at home, on weekends and at other times in an amount of hours sufficient to more than make up for the hours claimed on the subject pay roll certifications, while creditable, is not corroborated by any record of such "comp" time and cannot serve to extinguish the commission by Respondent of the technical violation of approval of those time sheets for subsequent payment when he knew those records were not accurate. Conduct And Effectiveness Respondent's misconduct, as established by the testimony of Lee, Smith, Bean, Gray, Jones and Powell, constitutes personal conduct reducing Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Board.
Recommendation Pursuant to provisions of disciplinary guidelines contained within Rule 6B-11.007, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by EPC revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of two years, with recertification at the conclusion of that time conditioned upon Respondent's acceptance of a three year probationary period upon terms and conditions to be established by the EPC, and it isFURTHER RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board dismissing and discharging Respondent from his position of employment with the Board.DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernst D. Mueller, Esquire Office of the General Counsel City of Jacksonville 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South 9th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 William J. Sheppard, Esquire Sheppard and White, P.A. 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8154
