The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as an educational support employer based on the incident that occurred on November 3, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's employment with Petitioner began on September 30, 2002. He is a school bus driver, who works out of the south zone transportation compound. The position of the bus driver is an education support employee. Respondent is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). Since Respondent commenced working for Petitioner in September 2002, he received one probationary performance assessment and three annual performance assessments. Respondent always scored an "effective level of performance" in all areas targeted for assessment. The "comment" section for Petitioner's 2003-2004 performance assessment stated he was "an excellent employee." On his 2004-2005 assessment, the assessor wrote in the "comments" section that Respondent "performs daily route, requiring little supervision." Respondent's director recommended that Respondent's annual contract with Petitioner be renewed for each of the school years for 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. On September 13, 2005, Respondent was involved in a minor traffic accident while driving his school bus. There were no passengers on the bus at the time. After initially being unable to reach his supervisor on the radio, Respondent spoke with his supervisor and was instructed to complete his scheduled run. As a consequence of the accident, Respondent was required to submit to a drug and alcohol test. Both tests were negative. Pending the results for the test, however, Respondent was reassigned to office duty at Petitioner's south zone transportation department. Respondent was required to submit to a second drug and alcohol test on September 15, 2005. Respondent was working in the transportation office at the time. He had returned from lunch and was accused of smelling like he had consumed marijuana. He claimed that he simply had smoked a cigar during his lunch break. The drug and alcohol tests were negative. Respondent cooperated with the drug and alcohol testing in both instances. Notwithstanding, he believed he was being unfairly singled out and expressed this fact to Armando de Leon, the director of transportation for the south zone. On November 3, 2005, Respondent reported for duty around 5:00 a.m. He conducted his pre-trip check of the bus and discovered that the screws on the bracket of the passenger-side cross-over mirror, which assists the driver in observing students, who pass in front, and to the side of the bus, had come loose from the bus. Respondent did not record the problem on his pre-trip checklist, but instead drove the bus to the mechanic bay to have it repaired. Since September 2005, Respondent repeatedly had experienced a problem with the bracket of the passenger-side cross-over mirror becoming loose. It was repaired on several occasions both before and after November 3, 2005. Respondent showed the mechanic, David Deberardis, the problem with the mirror. Respondent and the mechanic both determined that it was safe to operate the bus in its existing condition, at least for Respondent's initial morning run. The mechanic instructed Respondent to return the bus to him after Respondent's first trip, and he would repair it at that time. Before commencing his run, Respondent repositioned the bracket of the mirror so it was temporarily operable. Only after his students disembarked at their destination at South Fort Myers High School did Respondent observe that the mirror bracket had again worked itself loose, and the mirror was hanging down from the bus. On November 3, 2005, in response to a citizen's anonymous complaint regarding Respondent's operating his bus erratically, Nena Garrett, the Petitioner's road safety supervisor, was assigned to surveil Respondent's bus. Garrett waited for Respondent at the bus ramp of South Fort Myers High School on November 3, 2005. She observed Respondent park his bus, get out of his bus, and speak to the driver of the bus in front of him. Garrett was convinced that the bus in front of her then intentionally blocked her access to the bus ramp. However, she was able to follow Respondent's bus and observed that Respondent activated the left turn signal, but made a right turn out of the school bus ramp and drove approximately two miles to the bus compound. When Respondent parked his bus at the south compound, Garret noticed that the front bumper of the bus on the passenger side was scraped and that the cross-over mirror bracket was detached from the holder. Garrett did not witness Respondent be involved in an accident; however, she saw the damaged mirror. She then reviewed Respondent's pre-trip inspection log, which indicated that everything on Respondent's bus was in working order. No damage to the bus was reported on the inspection log for that day. Bus operators are taught in training how to conduct a pre-trip inspection, and that if anything is wrong with the bus, it should be noted on the form. Respondent acknowledged that he attended such training and that he had received the Operator's, Assistant's and Monitor's Handbook, which includes requirement that bus operators are to conduct a pre-trip inspection daily. Respondent did not indicate on his pre-trip inspection log that there was any damage to the mirror or to the outside of the bus for the report submitted on November 3, 2005. Garrett did not observe anything of concern when Respondent exited his bus at the compound. However, Garrett confronted Respondent in the parking lot and asked how the cross-over mirror was broken. Respondent explained to Garrett that he had reported the loose mirror to the mechanic earlier that morning and that the mechanic told him to return to have it fixed after he completed the first run. Garrett conferred with the mechanic and confirmed that Respondent indeed had reported the problem with the mirror to him and that he told Respondent to proceed with his first run. The mechanic also confirmed that the condition of the mirror was not the result of an accident. Garrett testified that during the conversation with Respondent in the parking lot of the south compound, she observed the Respondent trip climbing the bus stairs. She also testified that his eyes were red and glassy and that he had pasty saliva coming from his mouth. Based on her experience as a teacher of drug and alcohol traffic education courses, she determined that something was wrong with Respondent and that he must be impaired. Garrett made the decision to contact the south zone director, Armando de Leon, to inform him that it appeared Respondent had been in an accident and that his appearance was suspicious. Garrett did not inform de Leon that she had talked to the mechanic. Following Garrett's phone call, de Leon arrived on the scene, and Garrett informed de Leon what she had witnessed. De Leon contacted Patrick Hayhurst, the district's safety inspector and deputy sheriff, to ascertain how he should proceed with searching the bus. Hayhurst advised de Leon to conduct the search. Respondent was advised that Garrett would be searching the bus. Respondent consented to the search and stated that he "had nothing to hide." Respondent claimed that he also requested union representation at that time, but his request was denied, and they proceeded with the search. During the search, a small grey briefcase was discovered on the floor resting against a partition behind the driver's seat. De Leon obtained Respondent's permission to search the briefcase. Among the contents of the briefcase, Garrett found a plastic card with scrape marks and a light brown, sticky powder stuck to it. She also found a Swiss army pocket knife. The pocket knife was a multi-tool devise with a knife blade estimated to be a two inch to two and a half inch blade, along with other tools. Respondent admitted to de Leon that the knife was his. He also admitted that he had placed the knife in the briefcase, but had forgotten it was there. In addition to the above items found in the briefcase, a transparent pen was also found with some type of residue on it. Respondent testified on direct examination that the pen was actually a mechanical pencil; however, on cross-examination he admitted that it was in fact a pen. Respondent had received the School Board's employee Handbook, which indicates the Petitioner's zero tolerance policy for weapons on school property. The policy reads as follows: Florida Statutes supports district procedures stating that persons shall not possess any firearm, electric weapon or electric devise, destructive devise or other weapon on the property of any school, any school bus stop, any facility having a school-sponsored activity, a district facility or any district property. Check with your site administrator for more specific procedures and for information regarding situations of this type at your worksite. Due to the observations made by Garrett and de Leon, it was determined that reasonable suspicion existed to administer a drug and alcohol screening of the Respondent; including, a test for Oxycontin. De Leon was aware that Respondent had been prescribed to take Oxycontin for pain-related injuries received in the past. De Leon testified that after the items were found on the bus, he contacted Hayhurst once again to determine what to do next. Hayhurst advised de Leon to contact the Lee County Sheriff's Office for the purpose of documenting what was discovered and to have the substance on the plastic card tested. De Leon then contacted the sheriff's office. Respondent was asked to come into de Leon's office. Once inside, Respondent was afforded the opportunity to contact a union representative. He spoke with Suzan Rudd, the executive director of SPALC, who told him to say as little as possible. A union representative did not arrive at de Leon's office prior to Respondent's departure. De Leon put the knife, pen barrel, and plastic card down on his office desk and went to advise Jack Shelton of what was taking place. When he returned to the office, the knife and plastic card were gone. Respondent had taken possession of both items. Upon request, Respondent returned the plastic card to de Leon, but retained the knife. De Leon then received a phone call advising him that a deputy had arrived. De Leon testified that at that moment Respondent's disposition changed, and he became extremely agitated and aggressive, and he advanced towards him. At this point, the testimony of the witnesses becomes very conflicted. However, the best evidence indicates that Respondent backed de Leon up against the wall near the corner of his office. Garrett stood up, and de Leon yelled for help. De Leon had his hands up above his head, and Respondent reached his hands toward de Leon's arms seeking to retrieve the plastic card. At that time, Shelton entered the room and, at Shelton's request, Respondent stepped away from de Leon. The testimony is inconsistent regarding the physical incident with de Leon. The testimony was that he stumbled into de Leon, shoved de Leon, fought with de Leon, or forcibly put his hands on de Leon. The testimony of Garrett, Shelton, and Giles corroborates de Leon's testimony that he had his hands in the air, and Respondent was forcibly making contact with de Leon's arms and/or hands against his will. Immediately following the incident with de Leon, Respondent announced that he was resigning his position. He was advised that there was a process for submitting a resignation, and that it cannot be done verbally. Once again, Respondent was advised that he was being asked to submit to a drug test, and he refused. Respondent admitted to observing the nurse, from the company used to conduct drug tests for Petitioner, on the compound prior to leaving the premises. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy John Kinsey testified that when he arrived at the scene, he proceeded to de Leon's office and observed a struggle going on. He obtained information about the incident from those present. He stated that he could have taken Respondent to jail for battery; however, he advised de Leon that his possession of the Respondent's plastic card could be considered petty theft. He testified that both parties thought better of pressing charges at that moment and moved on. Deputy Kinsey then conducted a swipe of the plastic card, which is less then a presumptive field test. The test would show for cocaine and any type of methamphetamine. The test was negative. Deputy Kinsey did not test for marijuana or Oxycontin. His visual observation of the plastic card was inconclusive as to illegal substances. Respondent looked medicated and disconnected from the world to Deputy Kinsey, like someone who had been taking pills. Based on his observation of Respondent, he advised Respondent not to drive home after leaving Petitioner's compound. Respondent ignored the deputy's advice and drove from the premises. Respondent withdrew his verbal resignation when he arrived home later that day, after he had an opportunity to confer with a union representative. Although both Garrett and de Leon overreacted to the incident, de Leon was authorized to require Respondent to take a drug and alcohol test, to test the plastic card for drug residue, and to consider the pocket knife a weapon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent without pay from his position as a bus operator with the Lee County School District from March 14, 2006, until the end of the 2005-2006 school year. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that should the School Board follow this recommendation to suspend Respondent rather than terminate him, it is within the sole discretion of the superintendent of the district to offer Respondent a new contract for the school year 2006-2007. See Cox v. School Board of Osceola County, 669 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 18th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment for an altercation he was involved in that occurred on his bus.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence credited by the undersigned at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Wint has been employed by the School Board as a school bus driver for approximately 15 years. There was no evidence presented that Wint had been disciplined for any prior instances of misconduct as a bus driver. Wint is covered as an employee under the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (CBA), which provides that rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent . . . include . . . separation, suspension, dismissal and termination of employees for just cause. Pet. Ex. 1, § 3. School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, 4213, and 8600 were entered as exhibits and apply to Wint's employment.1/ Pet. Exs. 2–5. The School Board issued a Handbook for School Bus Drivers and Bus Aides (Handbook) for the 2017-2018 school year, which applies to Respondent's employment. The Handbook was admitted into evidence.2/ Pet. Ex. 6. School Bus Incident on October 10, 2017 To summarize, on October 10, 2017, Wint was transporting a large group of middle school students on his school bus. Due to a disruption by one of the students, Wint felt it was necessary to pull the bus over. Wint stopped the bus and went to the back to confront a 13-year-old, 8th-grade male student who had intentionally and unnecessarily opened the bus's emergency window, setting off the bus alarm.3/ A video of segments of the confrontation was recorded by students and entered into evidence. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Petitioner's Exhibit 16 is video coverage of the first part of the physical altercation between Wint and the male student. Petitioner's Exhibit 15 is video coverage of the second part of the physical altercation, after both had moved back down the bus aisle to return to their respective seats on the bus.4/ With respect to the details, the incident unfolded as follows: while the bus was in motion, the male student left his assigned seat without permission, went to the back of the bus, and opened the emergency exit window, causing the bus's audible alarm to sound.5/ Wint was required to immediately stop the bus to address the emergency alarm going off. Instead of directly calling dispatch as stated in the Handbook, Wint went to the back of the bus to confront the student, order him back to his assigned seat, assess the situation, and determine the best course of action. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16; Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c). Wint went to the back of the bus and confronted the male student. The altercation started when the male student rose up slightly out of the bus seat and punched Wint in the stomach several times. This evidence was uncontradicted. No other testimony or documents were offered to rebut this evidence. (These initial moments of the confrontation are not on the videos.) The first part of the cellphone video is shot from an elevated angle from the rear bus seat and starts by showing the two locked up, struggling in the back of the bus. Wint has his hands on the male student pulling him up forcefully and attempting to push the male student back up the aisleway to the front of the bus where his seat was located, and away from the other students. The male student pulled free from Wint's grasp and started up the aisleway. However, he turned around immediately and tried to shove Wint. Another male student interceded and restrained the male student by temporarily putting him in a headlock. When this occurred, Wint held back in the aisleway near the rear of the bus, watching and collecting himself. After the initial confrontation in the back of the bus, the second cellphone video picks up the action from a different angle (shooting from the middle of the bus towards the back). Several other students intervened to keep Wint and the male student separated. The male student tried to start up the altercation again and attempted to break through several students to get back at Wint. Wint is standing cornered in the back of the bus with his back to the emergency exit. While all this is going on, there is general pandemonium inside the bus with the other 20 to 25 students watching, yelling, or jeering at the scene. Notably, several of the other students appear frightened or alarmed and are very close to the altercation as it unfolds. The mid-bus cellphone video shows the male student turning around to head back up the bus aisleway. The male student is visibly angry, very upset, and is seen forcefully pounding his fists together defiantly as he walks. Wint is off camera, but the undersigned reasonably infers that Wint is behind the male student following him back up towards the front of the bus. As he walks up the aisleway in front of Wint, in an overt display of strong aggression and uncontrollable anger, the male student leans across a bus seat and violently punches a school bus window with his clenched fist.6/ Pet. Ex. 15. As Wint came down the narrow aisle behind the student and attempted to squeeze past him to continue to the driver's seat, Wint accidentally brushed against the male student.7/ At that point, the video shows the male student rapidly wheel around and the two begin to tussle, hands on each other, in the bus seat. Wint backs the male student up into the bus seat, closer to the window. Wint has both hands near, but not on, the neck area of the male student. There is no punching or swinging, just restraining and controlling. The more persuasive and credible evidence does not support the School Board's claim that Wint was intentionally choking the student with a pressure hold around his neck, nor holding the male student around the neck with his hands. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows, and the undersigned finds, that Wint is attempting to control and restrain the student by holding him firmly by the collar of his jacket/sweatshirt.8/ At the end, when a female student jumped in to separate the two, Wint abruptly released his hold and headed back to his driver's seat. The cellphone video ends at that point. Although the evidence was conflicting, it revealed, and the undersigned credits, that Wint had previously notified the Miami-Dade County School District (District) in writing that this particular male student had been repeatedly disruptive on his bus. Specifically, Wint complained in writing on or about October 4, 2017, that the same male student had been improperly opening the window and throwing objects outside the bus. His report was on a standard reporting form required by the School Board. It is called Student Case Management Referral, No. 723119. This other reported incident occurred on or about September 29, 2017, several days before the altercation. Resp. Ex. 1. The Student Case Management Referral form turned in by Wint was initialed by a District employee on October 4, 2017, just days before this bus incident on October 10, 2017.9/ Susan Detmold is the district director for Transportation Services since 2013. Detmold viewed the two videos of the altercation between Respondent and the male student. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Detmold opined that it was inappropriate behavior for a bus driver to engage in the behavior exhibited in the videos. Detmold testified that if a student is not sitting in his assigned seat, then the school bus driver should give warnings and provide a misconduct referral to the District.10/ She also testified that in accordance with State Board Rule, only the school principals have the authority to discipline students.11/ Detmold testified that the Handbook provides drivers with procedures to follow when handling student misconduct on the bus. Pet. Ex. 6, §§ 10.06-10.07, pp. 94-96. The Handbook states that school bus drivers can stop the bus if the behavior is a serious one. Drivers will immediately contact their Dispatch Office by two-way radio and provide them with details of the situation. Drivers are to await the aid of the field operations specialist or school police. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.06(c), p. 94. Wint disregarded this guideline in the Handbook and testified that he stopped the bus, went to the back of the bus to confront the student, but did not call Dispatch for school police until after the physical altercation with the male student had ended. The Handbook states in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.0171, State Board Rule, it is the responsibility of the bus driver [t]o maintain order and discipline, under the direction of the school principal, on the part of every passenger. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.03(i), p. 13. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted, by his actions, to maintain order and safety on the bus in the face of a very unruly, aggressive, and violent male student who was putting the safety of the bus, the bus driver, and other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus driver is responsible for the safety of the children in his/her care. A driver should place the safety, health, and well-being of his/her passengers above everything else while they are on the bus. Drivers shall maintain a professional attitude. Drivers should be patient, firm, fair, and friendly. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(e), p.15. The Handbook also states, in part, the school bus drivers will make a reasonable effort to deal with infractions of the rules of student conduct and will, to the best of their ability, maintain order and good behavior by students on their buses. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.05(o), p. 17. The videos show, and the undersigned finds, that Wint attempted during this incident to maintain order and safety on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, the school bus drivers must not touch or put [their] hands on students. Pet. Ex. 6, § 2.06(a), p. 21. The videos show that Wint did indeed lay his hands on the student, but the undersigned finds that this was done to restrain and control a very unruly and violent student, who presented a safety risk to the operation of the bus and other students on the bus. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. The Handbook states, in pertinent part, school bus drivers will not physically discipline . . . any student. Pet. Ex. 6, § 10.07(d), p. 96. The videos do not show that Wint physically disciplined a student. Rather, he justifiably attempted to control a violent, angry, and uncontrollable student who placed his safety and the safety of other students at risk. Pet. Exs. 15 and 16. Ultimate Findings of Fact Under the facts outlined herein, the undersigned finds that Wint's actions and conduct during this incident conformed with sections 1006.10 and 1012.45, Florida Statutes. The undersigned finds that the School Board's rules, policies, and Handbook provisions proscribe conduct authorized or required by sections 1006.10 and 1012.45 for a bus driver dealing with an unruly and violent student in an emergency situation. To the extent they do so, they are invalid and not controlling.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County immediately reinstating Respondent, Livingston Wint, to his position as school bus driver and provide him with back pay and other accumulated benefits since his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges (NSC) filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times, Petitioner has been a duly constituted School Board pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2005).1 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been a member of AFSCME and, as such, has been entitled to the benefits of the AFSCME Contract. Since November 15, 2002, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a school bus driver and assigned to the North Regional Transportation Center (NRTC). Until this incident, Respondent had not been disciplined by Petitioner. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Carter was a school bus attendant assigned to the NRTC. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Cone was a Field Operations Specialist assigned to the NRTC and had supervisory authority over Ms. Carter and Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sweeting was the Director of Petitioner’s NRTC and had supervisory authority over Ms. Cone. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Moss was a District Director in the Office of Professional Standards and assisted with performance and discipline of employees. She ensured that Petitioner complied with applicable due process requirements during a disciplinary proceeding. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. School Board Rule 6Gx13-E-1.10 incorporates by reference Petitioner’s Handbook for School Bus Drivers, Aides, and Operations Staff (Handbook). Section 3 of the Handbook is captioned “School Bus Driver Guidelines and Procedures.” Section 3.4 of the Handbook, captioned “Duties,” imposes the following duties on a school bus driver: . . . Drivers must report defective equipment to their Dispatch Office in writing on the “Driver’s Request for Repair (DRR)” form. The report must be made as soon as possible after the problem is detected. . . . If the driver encounters a problem while operating the vehicle, the Dispatch Office must be notified immediately and the driver must wait for instructions from the garage. Section 3.3 of the Handbook, captioned “Regulations,” imposes the following responsibilities on a school bus driver: “. . . Prepare immediately an accident report after every accident involving the bus or bus passenger. This report must be completed with the driver’s supervisor. Section 10 of the Handbook is captioned “Operating Procedures and Safe Driving Principles.” Section 10.1 of the Handbook, captioned “School Bus Operation,” provides as follows: Drivers must perform a complete pre-trip inspection of their assigned buses at least twice daily. The pre-trip inspection must be accomplished before the driver departs the compound with the bus. Pre-trip inspection results must be documented on the form provided for this purpose. . . . On August 20, 2004, Respondent was assigned to drive the bus along school bus Route 22. There is a bridge on Northwest 42nd Avenue between Northwest 179 and 183 Streets (the 42nd Avenue Bridge). On August 20, 2004, the 42nd Avenue Bridge was undergoing construction work. There were barricades, construction cones, and other warning devices that were visible to approaching drivers. Because of the construction, the NRTC had informed school bus drivers not to cross the 42nd Avenue Bridge. Respondent testified that he did not hear that warning, but that he knew the bridge was undergoing construction work. On the morning of August 20, 2004, Ms. Carter was the bus attendant on the bus driven by Respondent. At the time of the accident described below, there were four students on the bus. On the morning of August 20, 2004, Respondent drove the bus across the 42nd Avenue Bridge. There was a dispute between the parties as to what, if anything, occurred while Respondent was driving the bus across the 42nd Avenue Bridge. The greater weight of the competent evidence established that the bus collided with an object on the 42nd Avenue Bridge or with the 42nd Avenue Bridge itself. This accident caused minor damage to the bus.2 Respondent did not immediately stop to inspect the bus. After Respondent crossed the 42nd Avenue, he continued on his route, picked up students, and stopped at North Dade Middle School (NDMS) to drop off students. While stopped at NDMS, Respondent inspected the bus and noticed that the outer tire on the right rear of the bus was flat. Respondent testified that the inner tire on the right rear of the bus did not appear to be damaged. Respondent did not contact or make any report to the transportation dispatch office at that time. Respondent drove the bus with the damaged tire to the NRTC bus parking area. Respondent made the determination that it was safe to drive the bus with the damaged tire without consulting anyone.3 After Respondent returned to the NRTC bus compound, he completed a Driver’s Request for Repair (DRR) form, which indicated that the right rear outer tire needed repair. Because of Respondent’s DRR, the bus was taken from the bus parking area to the garage. After Ms. Carter returned to the bus compound with Respondent, she reported to Ms. Cone that the bus had had an accident as it crossed the 42nd Avenue Bridge. The report was in the form of a message left for Ms. Cone on her voicemail. Ms. Cone received Ms. Carter’s message on August 20, 2004, and promptly went to the parking area and then to the garage. She inspected the bus at the garage. Ms. Cone, who has had extensive experience and training in accident investigation, observed that bus’ right rear tire rim was bent and disfigured and that the bus’ door was damaged. After inspecting the bus, Ms. Cone informed Ms. Sweeting of Ms. Carter’s report and of her own observations. Ms. Sweeting and Ms. Cone immediately thereafter went to the 42nd Avenue Bridge, where they observed markings on the bridge that were consistent with a vehicle coming in contact with the bridge. The white stony color of the damaged area of the bridge was consistent with the white stony color Ms. Cone had observed on the damaged tire rim. Although the markings on the bus and on the bridge were consistent with one another, there was no conclusive proof that the markings observed on the bridge were caused by the bus. Ms. Cone took photographs of the bus and the bridge on August 20, 2004. Ms. Cone subsequently delivered the photographs and a report of the accident to Ms. Sweeting. Prior to the final hearing in this matter, Ms. Sweeting was reassigned to the East Regional Transportation Center. When she left the NRTC, Ms. Sweeting left the photographs in a file on her desk. The photographs were subsequently lost or misplaced. Respondent’s qualified representative made a public record’s request for the photographs and was informed that they had been lost.4 A Conference for the Record (CFR) was conducted on August 23, 2004, with Ms. Sweeting presiding. Also present were Respondent and an AFSCME representative. Ms. Sweeting recommended further disciplinary action. A second CFR was conducted October 29, 2004, with Ms. Moss presiding. Also present were Jerry Klein (Petitioner’s Director of Transportation), Ms. Sweeting, two AFSCME representatives, and Respondent. Following the second CFR, Respondent was required to submit to a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Thereafter, Petitioner’s staff made the disciplinary recommendation that was subsequently adopted by Petitioner. The photographs taken by Ms. Cone were available for review at both CFRs. The Handbook does not define the term “accident.” School bus drivers employed by Petitioner are required to undergo training when they are first hired. During training, a driver is taught to immediately report to the transportation dispatcher if his or her bus hits an object and damage to the bus results. A driver is taught that such an incident is an accident. Despite that training, Respondent denied that there had been an accident and explained that he defined an accident as being when someone gets hurt on the bus, when he hits or kills someone, or when he damages the property of another. He would not acknowledge that an accident also includes damaging the bus by hitting a bridge or an object on a bridge. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to document pre-trip inspections on August 18, 19 and 20, 2004. Respondent testified that he actually performed the pre-trip inspections, but that he did no documentation because he could not find the pencil he usually kept on the bus after he returned from sick leave. Respondent’s testimony that he completed the pre-trip inspection but failed to complete the required paperwork, although self-serving, was not refuted. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent did not conduct a pre-trip inspection, but it did prove that Respondent failed to complete the pre-trip inspection report.5 The parties agree that Petitioner has the authority to discipline Respondent for just cause consistent with the principles of progressive discipline. Article XI, Section 1A of the AFSCME Contract provides, under the caption “Due Process”, in relevant part, as follows: . . . Progressive discipline steps should be followed, however in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employees [sic] record. Therefore, disciplinary steps may include: verbal warning; written warning (acknowledged); letter of reprimand; suspension/demotion; dismissal. Article XI, Section 1B of the AFSCME Contract provides, in part, as follows: . . . [I]t is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME . . . members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Article XI, Section 4C of the AFSCME Contract provides that termination of employment may occur if a member is guilty of non-performance of job responsibilities. Article XI, Section 3 of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: If those cases where any employee has not complied with Board Policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order and sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment for 30 calendar days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2005.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Petitioner J. Ruiz School Bus Service, Inc., submitted the lowest responsive bid for school bus route 4606 and whether Petitioner A. Oliveros Transportation, Inc., submitted the lowest responsive bid for school bus route 7602.
Findings Of Fact Respondent School Board of Miami-Dade County issued its invitation to bid No. 053-ZZ07 seeking bids from private school bus companies for the School Board's school bus routes for the 1999-2000 school year, renewable for two additional one-year periods by agreement. Bid opening occurred on August 12, 1999. Twenty-one vendors responded to the School Board's invitation to bid. Four bids, including those of Petitioners, were rejected as non-responsive because they failed to include the required UCT-6 form. Petitioner Ruiz submitted the lowest bid for school bus route 4606, and Petitioner Oliveros submitted the lowest bid for school bus route 7602. At the School Board meeting on August 25, 1999, Ruiz' bid and Oliveros' bid were declared non-responsive to the bid specifications for failure to include the UCT-6 form and were rejected. School bus route 4606 was awarded to the next lowest bidder M & M Marroquin School Bus Services, Inc., and school bus route 7602 was awarded to the next lowest bidder Bestway Bus Service, Inc. (hereinafter "Bestway"). Those two vendors had submitted UCT-6 forms with their bids. Petitioners timely filed their notices of protest challenging the School Board's decisions. Rather than stopping the award process, the School Board entered into contracts with M & M and Bestway. The bid specifications contained the following provision under special condition numbered 3: The vendor will be required to submit, with the bid, the most recent copy of their [sic] Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation Employer's Quarterly Report Form UCT 6, showing current employees and payroll amount. In lieu of the June 30, 1999, Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation Employer's Quarterly Report Form UCT 6, a blank copy of the UCT 6 Form is provided and attached hereto for those vendors who do not have the June 30, 1999 quarterly report. This form must be completed in its entirety, with a copy being submitted with the bid and the original retained by the vendor for filing with the state. Failure to submit this report/form will cause the vendor to be considered non-responsive. Effective September 30, 1999, UCT 6 forms will be required to be submitted to Mr. Robert Newell, at the Office of Risk and Benefits Management on a quarterly basis. The UCT 6 form shall reflect all drivers currently certified and on file with the Department of Transportation. Failure to do so shall result in fourteen (14) months loss of route. Special condition numbered 4 provided that the School Board reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to waive irregularities. Special condition numbered 5 required that a copy of the occupational license be submitted with the bid and further provided that: "The information on the occupational license (name, address, etc.) shall be identical to the information submitted on the Bidder Qualification Form." A number of bidders who were not declared non- responsive submitted occupational licenses and bidder qualification forms where the names on the licenses and forms were reversed, technically a violation of special condition numbered 5. Further, one bidder not declared non-responsive submitted an occupational license in the name of an individual but submitted a bid in the name of a corporation, a violation of that special condition. Another bidder not declared non- responsive submitted a bidder qualification form and an occupational license with different addresses, and one more submitted a bidder qualification form and occupational license with different corporate names. The reasons for requiring vendors to file a UCT-6 form were to verify the vendor's current number of employees, to ascertain if the named employees were certified by the School Board's transportation department, and to determine whether the bidder was in compliance with State of Florida requirements for unemployment compensation and worker's compensation insurance. As to the number of employees, the vendor application forms also contained questions as to the number of employees. The occupational licenses required to be submitted with the bids also advised as to the number of employees. Twelve of the seventeen bidders who were not declared non-responsive submitted conflicting information as to the number of their employees in their vendor applications, their UCT-6 forms, and their occupational licenses. As to the UCT-6 form itself, the bid specifications required submittal of the bidder's most recent form, which would normally be for the quarter ending June 30, 1999. The bid specifications, alternatively, allowed completion of a blank form for a quarter ending subsequent to bid opening and bid award, which forms might not ever be filed with the State or which might be filed with different information on them. The completion of the blank forms would not necessarily verify the information desired by the School Board. One bidder not declared non-responsive submitted a form for the quarter ending March 31, 1999, thereby not appearing to comply with either alternative. Moreover, the bid specifications required the UCT-6 forms to be completed in their entirety. Nine bidders who were not declared non-responsive submitted forms which were not completed in their entirety, missing such information as payroll amounts, dates, account numbers, and the quarter covered by the form. These bidders violated special condition numbered 3. There is no real difference between failing to submit a required form and failing to complete the form as required by the bid specifications. Failure to submit the UCT-6 form was not a material deviation from the bid specifications but rather was a minor irregularity. The School Board waived that minor irregularity by its failure to deem non-responsive those other bidders who had filed the wrong form or who had failed to complete the form. Petitioners' failure to include the UCT-6 form in their bids did not affect the price of their bids, confer upon them an economic advantage over the other bidders, or give the School Board any reason to doubt that Petitioners could perform any contract award. The School Board's acceptance of incomplete UCT-6 forms, a form for an earlier quarter, and forms containing information extending into a future time period, while rejecting Petitioners' bids for not including a form, was arbitrary and capricious. Declaring Petitioners non-responsive but accepting equally non-responsive bids was also clearly erroneous and contrary to competition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding Petitioner J. Ruiz School Bus Service, Inc., school bus route 4606 and awarding to Petitioner A. Oliveros Transportation, Inc., school bus route 7602. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jose I. Valdes, Esquire Marlow, Connell, Valerius, Abrams, Adler & Newman, P.A. 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33133-3765 Twila Hargrove-Payne, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carlos Garcia, Esquire Niurka R. Piedra, Esquire Garcia, Perez-Siam & Associates 265 Sevilla Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Collin Hall, has been employed with the Lee County School District since August 13, 2001. He is currently assigned as a Bus Operator in Petitioner’s Transportation Department. Respondent is a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (“SPALC”) and has been a member during all times relevant to this matter. Respondent was assigned as an unassigned regular (UAR) bus operator during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school year. A UAR is available each day to be assigned to a bus when the regular driver is out sick or if the bus route is challenging. The District considers a UAR bus operator as its most professional bus operator. The allegations against Respondent are set forth in the Petition for Termination of Employment filed with DOAH (the Petition). In relevant part, the Petition charges Respondent with the following: failing to control students on the bus Respondent was operating; failing to protect students on the bus if an emergency should develop due to the conduct of the students; failing to ensure that each passenger on the bus was wearing a safety belt; failing to maintain order and discipline, require all passengers remain seated and keep the aisles clear, and immediately report to the designated official student misconduct occurring on the bus in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-3.017; grabbing a student in violation of Board Policy 5.26; failing to adhere to the highest ethical standards and to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional and contributes to a positive learning environment for students in violation of Board Policies 5.02 and 5.29; and failing to call a dispatcher for assistance if a discipline problem is not resolved in a few minutes as outlined in the Lee County School District’s Handbook for bus operators. Respondent attended various trainings during his tenure with the District, including training entitled, “Wolfgang Student Management,” “All Safe in their Seats,” “Dealing with Difficult Students/Seatbelts,” “Bully on Bus,” “ESE Behavior” and “First Line of Defense.” All of these classes provided training in student management or student discipline on a school bus. In addition to receiving yearly and periodic training, Respondent was provided a manual entitled “School Bus Driver’s Manual, Critical Incident Procedures” published by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) and distributed by the District to all bus operators. Page 14 of the manual outlines the procedures to be used for disruptive students. The Bus Driver’s Manual further provides in its Introduction that: The procedures outlined in this document are guidelines (emphasis added) and should be reviewed and tailored by each school district to conform to local policies – always (emphasis theirs) adhere to the district emergency procedures. Although these guidelines reflect the best practices of several Florida school district transportation departments, no one can foresee the details of every emergency. Many emergencies require the driver’s best judgment, keeping in mind the priorities of life safety (sic), protection of property and the environment. In keeping with the FDOE’s directive to tailor the guidelines to conform to the District’s local policies, the District established a policy for the “Preservation of Order on Special Needs Bus.” That policy is outlined in Robert Morgan’s August 24, 2008, Memorandum to Professional Standards. It requires the school bus operator “and/or attendant” to preserve order and good behavior on the part of all pupils being transported. It also provides that: shall an emergency develop due to conduct of the pupils on the bus, the bus driver and/or attendant shall take steps reasonably necessary to protect the pupils on the bus. They are not obligated to place themselves in physical danger; however, they are obligated to immediately report pupil misconduct to a Transportation Supervisor. (emphasis supplied) On May 21, 2008, Respondent was assigned to Bus 999, along with bus attendant Kelia Wallace. Bus 999 transported students that attend Royal Palm Exceptional Center. Royal Palm Exceptional Center is a school that educates students with special needs, including those that may have emotional issues that result in disruptive behavior. All Royal Palm students have Individual Education Plans that require special transportation. Bus 999 was equipped with an audio and video recording system, as are all Exceptional Student Education (ESE) busses in Lee County. The audio and video are recorded to a hard drive which can be viewed at a later time. Robert Morgan, Director of Transportation South, was alerted of an issue on Bus 999 on the evening of May 21, 2008. Morgan was informed that Bus 999 made an unscheduled stop at the San Carlos Park Fire Station during its afternoon route earlier that day. As a result, on the morning of May 22, 2008, Morgan viewed the video recording from Bus 999 from the previous afternoon. Following his review of the footage, Morgan directed a member of his staff to copy the relevant portions of the raw footage to a compact disc. The information on the disc was then forwarded to the District’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity for review and further investigation. There was some testimony from Respondent doubting the accuracy of the video and inferring that the video had been altered in some way. However, the record is devoid of any evidence to contradict the audio and video evidence submitted on compact disc by the District. In addition, there was credible eye witness testimony relative to the incident. After Respondent picked up the students at their school and was following the route to deliver them home, Student C.M. was acting inappropriately in the back of the bus. From his driver’s seat, Respondent commanded C.M. to sit down, which was ignored. Respondent pulled over, stopped the bus and proceeded to the back of the bus to deal with C.M. Respondent grabbed C.M., lifted him off the floor of the bus, carried him several rows forward, and put him into another seat on the bus. C.M. was not kicking, punching or threatening any other student when Respondent took this action. C.M. continued to carry on a taunting dialogue with students, including J.O., who was in the back of the bus. Respondent then proceeded on the route. After several minutes Respondent noticed some paper sitting in the middle of the aisle. While the bus was moving, Respondent ordered J.O. to come forward in the aisle to retrieve the piece of paper he had thrown toward the front of the bus. As a result, J.O. walked by C.M. who was still taunting J.O. and other students. The two students then become involved in a physical altercation. Respondent said nothing and continued to drive the bus. The two students continued to fight for approximately 40 seconds before Respondent stopped the bus and walked toward the back of the bus to get a closer look. The fight continued for an entire minute before Respondent took any action to intervene or break up the fight. Instead, Respondent instructed his bus attendant to write up a disciplinary referral (students fighting), but stood nearby and watched the students fight. Respondent said nothing to the students. Respondent then turned his back on the fight, threw up his hands in disgust and returned to the driver’s seat to resume driving the bus. Respondent did not contact dispatch or law enforcement regarding the fight. Approximately 30 seconds later, student C.M. yelled an expletive at student J.S. J.S. came forward, confronted C.M., and battered him to the point where C.M. ended up on the floor of the bus, where J.S. punched and kicked him numerous times. Respondent said nothing. The incident continued for another 20 seconds before J.S. backed off. Respondent again walked down the aisle toward the students. While lying on the floor between the seats, C.M. complained that he was injured. Respondent waited several seconds prior to attempting to assess C.M.’s injuries. Respondent then stated to C.M., “Let me see your nose.” Respondent observed that C.M. suffered a bloody nose as a result of the altercation. Respondent did not provide any immediate medical attention or care to C.M. Respondent returned to the driver’s seat and began to drive. Respondent drove the bus to the San Carlos Park Fire Department station where C.M. received first aide from an Emergency Medical Technician. C.M.’s father was also notified and responded to the scene. Respondent attempted to defend his conduct by indicating that he would have been injured or he could have injured one of the students if he attempted to break up the altercations. This testimony is not credible. Respondent admitted that bus operators are prohibited from picking up students and that he should have used verbal prompts during the other incidents to urge the students to stop fighting. Respondent testified that prior to the events depicted on video, C.M. had responded to an earlier verbal prompt by the bus attendant to return to his seat. Respondent’s testimony is inconsistent and not entirely credible in this regard. In a further effort to mitigate Respondent’s conduct, Respondent’s counsel attempted to portray the students on the bus as completely uncontrollable and the District or school as unsupportive of the bus operators hired to transport these students. However, credible evidence showed that disruptive students were regularly suspended from the bus and from school. C.M. had proven to be a discipline problem on the bus. C.M. historically was confrontational and argumentative with the other students. Notwithstanding C.M.’s prior history of misconduct and violence on the bus, the District suspended C.M. from the bus for one day. Whether Respondent failed to take adequate corrective measures to ensure that C.M. did not repeat such actions prior to allowing him to continue riding the bus is irrelevant to this proceeding. However, Respondent was aware that at least one of the students on the bus had been previously disciplined for inappropriate conduct. Respondent had experience transporting Royal Palm students and had transported Royal Palm students previously during the 2007-2008 school year. In addition, Respondent stated that he had attended all of the training the District provided regarding the discipline and handling of disruptive students on a school bus. It is clear from the record that Respondent had been trained to deal with such students. Respondent mentioned the word “judgment” repeatedly throughout his testimony. Although judgment plays a role in the control of student behavior, the FDOE School Bus Driver’s Manual spells out the protocol for dealing with disruptive students. The first three things a bus operator is to do is to tell students to stop fighting, pull off the road to a safe place and call dispatch and have them contact parents. Judgment is not a part of any of the above instructions, and Respondent failed to follow two out of three requirements. He neither told the students to stop fighting nor called dispatch to inform them of the fights. The bus operator is then to go to the area of the fight, assess the situation, identify the students involved and attempt to gain control. If the operator cannot gain control the FDOE manual states that the operator should radio for help, remove other students from the area of the fight, intervene if the situation is life-threatening, or if not, to monitor and wait for assistance and use reasonable force to prevent injury to himself and the students. Respondent never attempted to gain control of the situation and then, when it did get out of control, he never radioed for help, removed other students from the area of the fight or used reasonable force to prevent injury to the students. Morgan testified that Respondent’s alleged violation of the policy for safety belts was “not the issue,” and the District was not seeking to discipline Respondent for anything related to the non-use of safety belts. Consequently, the District effectively withdrew this charge at hearing. Also, the District did not introduce as evidence the School District of Lee County Transportation Services Operator’s, Assistant’s and Monitor’s Handbook. The charge that Respondent did not follow the procedure as outlined in the Handbook therefore fails for lack of evidence. Respondent failed to comply with the District’s policy for preserving order on a special needs bus. He did not exercise his best judgment. His testimony as to why he did not physically intervene in the fights between C.M. and J.O. and J.S. for fear that he would injure himself or the students is not credible. Although he directed Ms. Wallace to write disciplinary referrals for the students that were fighting, this was inadequate. He did, however, obtain emergency medical care for C.M., and notified the dispatch center of the Transportation Department of the fight and the fact that he was required to divert his route of travel to the fire station for medical care. Immediately, upon his return to the bus compound, Respondent completed and filed with his supervisor an Incident Report detailing the events on the bus that afternoon. Petitioner proved by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent violated the policies recited in the Petition as a., b., c., d., e., and f. Since Respondent commenced working for the District, he received one probationary and seven annual performance assessments. With the exception of his 2007-2008 performance assessment, Respondent always scored at an “Effective level of performance observed,” except one score of “Inconsistently practiced” in his 2003-2004 assessment for the area targeted of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Respondent’s supervisor consistently recommended him for reemployment, including the 2008-2009 school year. In his 2007-2008 annual performance assessment, Respondent received a score of “Effective level of performance observed” in 29 out of a total of 32 areas targeted for assessment. Respondent received two scores of “Inconsistently practiced” for the areas of “Reports to work as expected unless an absence has been authorized” and “Reports to work on time as determined by route schedules,” and one score of “Unacceptable level of performance observed” for the area of “Demonstrates an energetic and enthusiastic approach to work, avoids excessive or unnecessary use of sick/personal leave.” Although the District’s performance assessment form provides that Criteria marked “I” or “U” require additional documentation, there was no evidence of any such documentation. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was disciplined on two occasions. Respondent was involved in a physical altercation with another employee in February of 2008 and as a result he was suspended for three days without pay. In addition, Respondent was suspended for an additional three days without pay for causing a disruption on another bus operator’s route. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order finding that just cause exists for termination of the employment of Respondent and dismissing Respondent from his position as a bus operator with the School District of Lee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should terminate Respondent's employment with the Lee County School District for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the acting superintendent of schools for the Lee County School District. References to "Petitioner" shall include Petitioner's predecessors and the Lee County School Board. Petitioner originally hired Respondent as a school bus driver in September 1974. Respondent worked in this capacity for Petitioner for the ensuing 23 years, except for the 1988-89 school year. During the time in question, Respondent worked under an annual contract ending June 30, 1997. During the one-year period ending June 30, 1997, Petitioner entered into a contract with Child Care of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Child Care) for the use of school property, including school buses. The purpose of the contract is to establish a program under which Child Care transports and supervises schoolchildren in after-school and summertime daycare programs. Under the contract, Petitioner provides Respondent with school buses and bus drivers. The contract prohibits the operation of the buses by anyone other than drivers "assigned by [Petitioner]." The contract provides that Petitioner shall charge Child Care for the actual costs of operating the buses, the "drivers' hourly salary," and an additional mileage fee. The contract imposes on Child Care the responsibility of carrying motor vehicle liability insurance for Child Care and Petitioner. The contract requires that Child Care "observe all rules and regulations promulgated by the School Board for its operation of school buses." Petitioner's rules prohibit bus drivers from carrying firearms while on Petitioner's property. The employment contract between the parties also requires Respondent to abide by all state and local laws and rules. Petitioner assigned Respondent as one of the bus drivers under the Child Care contract for the Christmas break in December 1996. On the morning of December 30, 1996, Respondent carried a loaded .22-caliber pistol onto one of Petitioner's school buses. The pistol was in Respondent's jacket, which he placed beside the driver's seat. Respondent then drove his normal route, picking up children and transporting them to Petitioner's public school that, under the contract, Child Care was operating while school was not in session. After finishing his morning route, Respondent left the bus at the public school with the loaded pistol still inside the jacket beside the driver's seat. Late in the afternoon of the same day, Respondent reboarded the bus, allowed the schoolchildren to reenter the bus, and drove his normal route. The loaded pistol remained in the jacket on the bus throughout the afternoon route. Although not charged with the personal use of Petitioner's property, Respondent did not return the school bus after he completed his afternoon route. Instead, he transported his own children to the residence of his estranged wife where Respondent threatened the woman with the pistol. After threatening the woman, Respondent drove the school bus, while still armed with the loaded pistol, to Petitioner's bus lot, where Respondent parked the bus and was apprehended by police, who found the loaded pistol beside the driver's seat, but no longer in a jacket. Respondent knew throughout the day of December 30, 1996, that he was in possession of a loaded firearm while operating Petitioner's school bus.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment contract of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 24th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Hament Kevin J. Hubbart Kunkel Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 970 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Harry A. Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Jack Taylor, Acting Superintendent Lee County Public Schools 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of the acts charged in the specific notice of charges dated September 11, 1990, and, if so, whether petitioner should discharge him from his job as a school bus driver or take other disciplinary action?
Findings Of Fact After orientation and instruction beginning with his employment as a school bus driver trainee in September of 1987, respondent "was given [his] first bus" (T.383) on December 9, 1987. Formerly a truck driver, he became a permanent or non-probationary school bus driver in March of 1988. 1987-1988 After respondent drove his first route, No. 131, for two days, a supervisor shifted him to route No. 94, telling him "what a troubled bus it was." T.386. The supervisor told him the middle school students had already had plenty of warnings and exhorted him, "'Quit warning them. Write them up.'" Id. The rest of the 1987-1988 school year, respondent drove route No. 94, which entailed two separate runs, one for kindergarteners and one for middle schoolers. On the middle school run, "90 percent of the children wouldn't mind at all." T.392. The first of March or the end of February of 1988 (T.64), respondent Henderson told Rosalyn Brown, at the time the only black student on the bus, "to sit [her] black ass down in the seat." T.269. On other occasions, he told students to "[s]hut the hell up," (T.270) and said, "I won't put up with this bullshit." Id. He used the word "[f]uck . . . sometimes." T.256. Petitioner's official school board policies, a copy of which respondent received at or about the time he began work, state: Drivers shall at all times set good examples for the students riding their buses. Do not do on your bus that which students are not permitted to do. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, No. 6.44.9. Hernando County School Bus Rules, Instructions for Pupils Riding Buses provides, "Pupils must not use any abusive or profane language to other pupils, the driver, or pedestrians." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, No. 10(b). On May 23, 1988, middle school girls were seated on the right hand side of the bus and boys on the left, as usual. As the bus, with respondent at the wheel, passed prisoners at work on a shoulder of the road, "the girls started leaning out the window hollering." (T.396) Mr. Henderson had hardly told them to close their windows when, while waiting for a traffic light to change, a "car pulled up beside [him, and the driver] complained that the boys w[ere] throwing paper out the windows at the back," (T.397) so he "informed the boys to close their windows," (id.) too. When, windows closed (except for respondent's), the bus began to resound with the sound of "stomping . . . feet" (T.397), Mr. Henderson pulled the bus over and parked by the side of the road. Unable to restore order, he drove the bus back to middle school. There respondent allowed the students to lower their windows, and the "duty teacher" urged them to behave. To respondent, the duty teacher said "if they didn't quiet down, take them on into Brooksville," (T.398) to the bus barn. Because the students were still unruly five minutes later, respondent drove them from the school to the transportation compound, where a mechanic boarded the bus to help maintain order, while respondent drove the children home. No violation of school board policy on Mr. Henderson's part was proven, in connection with the events of May 23, 1988. Limbs protruding and various missiles leaving through open windows justified his directing that the windows be closed. The radio in respondent's bus at the time was not in working order. Petitioner's official policies require that each "bus driver shall be responsible for being familiar with all state and local laws and regulations in regard to safety and see that these are properly carried out." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.4. At stop signs, respondent would "slow down, but he wouldn't come to a complete stop" (T.271) every time. When he failed to come to a complete stop, "the students would always yell at him about it." T.277. 1988-1989 Respondent resumed driving route No. 94 when school started in the fall of 1988. One day the first week back two fights broke out before the bus left middle school, and the new principal had to intervene. Later in the week, Joan Gear, petitioner's transportation coordinator told Mr. Henderson, "'Ray, we're going to prove a point to this principal. I want you to take another bus for a while.'" T.402 (Discipline problems persisted under respondent's successor on bus No. 94.) Mr. Henderson began the second week of the new school year driving route No. 108. After a week on route No. 108, he was transferred, without explanation, to route No. 73, one of the routes he had been on as a trainee and a less remunerative assignment than either No. 94 or No. 108. Only after the first Monday morning's run did he receive the No. 73 route report or route sheet, which listed twelve regularly scheduled stops. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B. The tenth morning stop was listed as "White House on Right," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B, on Ft. Dade Street. The white house meant stands north of Ft. Dade and slightly east of Little People's Day Care, which is on the south side of the street. Brandy Huntley, a niece of the day care center's proprietress, and two other middle schoolers were picked up mornings directly across the street from the white house, at the end of the day care center driveway. The first afternoon he drove, respondent stopped directly in front of the white house, and Brandy and the other middle schoolers disembarked there. But two afternoons that week (not in succession) he failed to stop in front of the white house (or across the street from Little People's Day Care.) Instead he stopped after turning left at the next intersection. Respondent's claim that a ditch made it necessary to stop in the middle of the road, if the bus stopped in front of the white house or across from the nursery afternoons, went unrebutted; but letting children out around the corner created other hazards. Nor was the spot respondent chose a "regularly scheduled stop" for any student. School board policy provides that "[a] driver shall not let any student off the bus at other than the student's regularly scheduled stop, unless permission has been given in writing by the child's parent." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.18. No such permission had been given here. Under school board policy, bus drivers may never let students off between regularly scheduled stops. After a discussion about where to stop on Ft. Dade Street in the afternoons and before his first week on route No. 73 was out, respondent took a leave of absence through November 22, 1988. Once the leave was over, petitioner's initial refusal to put him back to work resulted in respondent's filing an unfair labor practice charge. On January 18, 1989, he returned to work. For the remainder of the school year, he drove route No. 75, without incident. Two Minutes Time allotted for regular routes includes a half hour for cleaning and paper work, but drivers on field trips are paid based on the time actually required to do the job. On July 18, 1989, Mr. Henderson drove on a field trip. Ordinarily, a field trip driver completes and submits a form showing how long he has worked, only after making the trip and cleaning the bus. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11 and 13; T. 423. Rain made for an early end to the field trip. At five minutes after noon on the 18th, Mr. Henderson set out for the restroom in the transportation compound offices. He took with him a form on which he had written 12:30, his estimate of when he would finish cleaning the bus. Leaving the form on Miss Looper's desk, he returned to the bus and began cleaning. After he had cleaned the bus, he returned to the compound office, which he reached at 12:28. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11, 13, T. 423. When Ms. Gear asked him to substitute 12:28 for 12:30 on the form, he responded, "Joan, if you want the time changed, change it." (T.424) When she said, "I won't pay you if you don't change it," Id., he replied, "Don't pay me." Id. A month later, the unaltered form was processed and respondent was paid. Whether two minutes made any difference in his compensation for the field trip the evidence did not show. 1989-1990 When the next school year began, Mr. Henderson drove route No. 200. One October afternoon after students had boarded, Mr. Henderson prepared to pull away from the high school. Before moving forward, the bus rolled back a few inches into the bus driven by Jose Santiago. Without respondent's knowing, a tail light lens struck (without damaging) a mirror on Santiago's bus, leaving a hole in the lens two inches across. T. 287-291, 376, 429. Accidents of this kind are not uncommon. To prevent students' walking in front of buses, the drivers park them tightly one behind another before school lets out. T. 287-291, 342, 376, 377, 426, 530. By the time Mr. Santiago finished his route and reached the transportation compound, Mr. Henderson had already left. Mr. Santiago reported the accident to the office staff and to one of the mechanics, who brought the bus respondent had driven to the garage to replace the lens. But Mark Tallent told the mechanic to return the bus unrepaired to its regular parking place, setting a "trap" he had never set for any other driver. T. 24, 58, 59, 288, 378. Bus drivers are required to perform a "pre-trip inspection" of their buses, and make records of the inspections by completing forms. Petitioner requires that all exterior lights be checked. The next morning respondent indicated that everything was in working order on his pre-trip inspection form. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7; T. 39. Ken Schill, petitioner's safety officer, followed respondent's bus in another vehicle and pulled him over. Together they inspected the broken lens. Petitioner suspended Henderson for three days and required him to take eight hours of in-service training, on account of the inspection form's inaccuracy. T. 40-41, 95-96, 428-429. In January or February, Mr. Henderson's bus was following bus No. 149 on a dusty rock or gravel road. After bus No. 149 made a newly scheduled stop, Mr. Henderson braked suddenly and steered his bus to the left to avoid hitting bus No. 149. By the time he came to a stop, the buses overlapped. T. 454, 498, 502. On the afternoon of February 28, 1990, Mr. Henderson had driven the school bus to the crest of a hill on Weatherley Road, when state trooper Lee Frye, who was sitting in his car at the bottom of (the other side of) the hill "clocked Mr. Henderson speeding." T.151. He was exceeding the 35-mile-per hour speed limit by at least ten miles per hour, although he told the trooper the speedometer had not indicated this. T. 151, 157, 430-433; Respondent's Exhibit No. 7A. Trooper Frye did not give Mr. Henderson a citation, but he told the Board's transportation department that the bus was going 52 miles per hour. Although not consistently enforced, school Board Policy 6.44(23) states: "Any bus driver guilty of a traffic violation involving a school bus will be dismissed." After Mr. Tallent checked Henderson's speedometer, he recommended and the School Board approved a suspension of ten days plus fifteen hours' retraining on account of this incident. T. 44-45, 151-157, 430-436. One afternoon on Willow Street respondent veered to avoid a car and knocked over at least two empty, lidless, rubber trashcans standing approximately one foot from the right edge of the road. When, back at the compound, Mr. Henderson told Mark Tallent about the accident, Mr. Tallent said to forget about it. T. 437-444, 496. On another afternoon, Scott Robinson, a student who had just gotten off bus No. 200, was approximately 6 or 7 feet in front of the bus when he heard the engine revving. Although Scott did not see the bus move forward, he was frightened, and the bus in fact "jerked." T. 133-148. The next morning, Mr. Henderson inquired "You really didn't think I was going to hit you, did you?" T.134. Another time the bus lurched forward while Kathy Black "was still in front of the bus" (T.252) "and about hit her." Id. Tom Ferris complained that Henderson almost hit another bus. Cathy Smith, a parent of a student on route No. 200 filed a complaint on April 30, 1990, claiming that he failed to stop for her daughter at her regularly scheduled stop. On May 3, 1990, petitioner received a three-page list of 21 complaints against Mr. Henderson, accompanied by a petition with 20 names on it, both written by Kim Lowe, a student on route No. 200 whom respondent had frequently disciplined. On May 4, 1990, another parent, Mr. Burris, complained to Mr. Tallent that he had observed respondent speeding and driving recklessly. T. 46-51, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Earlier during the 1989-90 school year, petitioner's Department of Transportation had received still other complaints about Mr. Henderson. On May 3 or 4, 1990, without offering any explanation, Mr. Tallent told respondent he need no longer report for work. He did not tell Mr. Henderson of the complaints Ms. Smith and Messers. Burris and Ferris had made or give him an opportunity to refute their allegations prior to the filing of formal charges.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss respondent as a school bus driver. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 through 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the school year was 1987-1988. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the complaint included the words "god damn." With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17, the evidence showed things were being thrown out of the bus. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 46, 48, 49 and 50, it was not proven that other drivers reported every accident, however minor, or did so before leaving the scene, and respondent did report hitting the trashcans. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 64 refers to a complaint that was not proven at hearing. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 65 is not supported by citation to the record. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 69, the evidence did not show what she thought other than that she was "stunned looking." Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 through 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is a proposed conclusion of law. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, she testified she was the only black. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, a "duty teacher" boarded the bus and spoke to the children. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the morning stop was across the street from the white house. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, students calling out alerted him the buses had collided. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the policy has not been enforced consistently. COPIES FURNISHED: John T. Jaszczak, Esquire Hogg, Allen, North & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 S. Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1700 Dr. Daniel L. McIntyre, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 U.S. 41 North Brooksville, FL 34601
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was reemployed as a substitute or hourly teacher on a noncontractual basis after he was retired for one month.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Board for several years as a driver's education teacher prior to his retirement. This position is a certificated teaching position under the rules of the State Department of Education. The operation of school buses in Duval County was and is done primarily by private companies, who are independent contractors and who, in turn, hire the bus drivers. Several years ago, the State of Florida required by law that all school bus drivers be certified as school bus drivers at the time of their initial employment. The Superintendent of Schools of Duval County instituted a program to certify its school bus drivers using Board personnel. Certificated driver's education teachers were asked to become qualified with the State to evaluate and test school bus drivers to insure that the drivers were in compliance with State law. Rule 6A-3.0141, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. All of the bus driver evaluators were driver's education instructors. Petitioner was one of the driver's education teachers who qualified and was employed to evaluate and test school bus drivers. The job of the Petitioner and other evaluators was to educate and test the drivers about the bus safety rules, to include "check" rides with drivers before certifying them. The school bus driver certification program is operated by the Board on a full-time basis, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. There is a written job description for the position of driver's education teacher which was not changed or amended to reflect the additional duties of bus driver evaluation. Prior to retiring, Petitioner worked as a driver's education teacher on a full-time basis (7 hours, 20 minutes per day) and performed the duties as evaluator and tester of the drivers after school and on Saturdays. He was paid a salary for his teaching duties and an additional amount for his services as bus driver evaluator. Although Petitioner received one compensation check, the payroll stub indicated regular and overtime pay. His additional compensation was calculated on the basis of hours actually worked and from the salary schedule for part-time teachers. Funding for regular work and overtime was charged to the same cost account, "1850", and all his pay was based upon his duties as a certified teacher in pay classification "0610." The payroll code for a driver's education teacher is "0610". The Board did not have a pay code for a bus driver evaluator. Evaluating bus drivers is an additional duty performed by driver's education teachers. Pay classification code "0610" is applicable to all driver's education teachers; and the Petitioner, as well as all of the driver's education teachers, was compensated from the instructional salary account of the Board. Although all bus driver evaluators were driver's education teachers, not all driver's education teachers were bus driver evaluators. Additional duty as a bus driver evaluator was voluntary, and driver's education teachers were paid additional compensation for performing these duties. Their entire pay, including the additional compensation, was charged to Responsibility Center No. 1850 - Driver's Education. Cost center code "1850" is a cost code associated with academic programs. Petitioner was rehired as a teacher after retirement and placed in pay category "0610". This was done because the only persons performing bus driver evaluations in Duval County are driver's education teachers, and no other classification or pay code is applicable. Petitioner was placed in salary code "0610", driver's education teacher. Messrs. Richard and Boney were Petitioner's supervisors and they did the administrative portion of certifying the drivers. Richard and Boney are "administrators" with the Board and not certificated or instructional personnel. A person is classified as a teacher on the basis of (a) the union collective bargaining agreement and (b) the rules of the Public Employees' Relation Commission. It is up to the supervisor to assign the person's duties. Those duties would determine the salary code from which the person would be paid. Petitioner retired under the FRS, effective July 1, 1989, and was placed on the FRS payroll on that date. In July of 1989, he completed a Board form by which he made himself available for reemployment. Petitioner was rehired in August as a driver's education teacher, pay classification "0610", cost center "1850". His supervisor assigned him duties as a bus driver evaluator and tester beginning on August 21, 1990. Petitioner worked part of the months of August, September and October of 1989 and was paid at the rate of $15.85 per hour, the same rate and from the same account as other hourly teachers, "1850". (Exhibit No. 6). While so employed, he could have taught the classroom phase of the evaluation program or could have been assigned to teach driver's education; however, Petitioner only did the road test and evaluation of bus drivers. Petitioner had the same duties relative to the bus drivers' evaluations and testing both before and after retirement. After retirement, the Petitioner had the same pay code and cost center he had had before his retirement. Although his assigned duties after retirement did not include driver's education, Petitioner did some of the same work that he had done before his retirement and was subject to being assigned student teaching duties. Inadvertently, the Board deducted retirement contributions from Petitioner's pay and reported the contributions to the Division of Retirement. (Exhibit No. 5). This precipitated an audit of the account; and the Division of Retirement concluded, based upon the data, that Petitioner was not employed as a teacher by the local school district.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that Division of Retirement take no action to collect the benefits paid to the retiree during the period of his reemployment by the Duval County School Board between August, September, and October 1989. DONE AND ENTERED this 28 day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2424 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-8. Adopted. First portion adopted; last two sentences rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. First portion adopted; last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. Adopted, except first sentence, which was rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted, except last two sentences, which were rejected as statement of issues. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Albert A. Moss, Pro Se 111 Inwood Terrace Jacksonville, FL 32207 Stanley M. Danek, Esq. Department of Administration Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560
The Issue Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Christopher O'Brien and suspend him for five days without pay. Whether Petitioner School Board had just cause to reprimand Respondent Angelo DiPaolo and suspend him for three days without pay.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Christopher O'Brien was employed by Petitioner Hernando County School Board as a school bus driver. Mr. O'Brien was first hired by Petitioner as a school bus driver in 2001. Prior to the events of this case, he had never been disciplined by his employer, and he had received a number of commendations. At all times material, Angelo DiPaolo was employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant. Mr. DiPaolo was first employed and trained by Petitioner as a school bus driver for about one year, but he had been employed by Petitioner as a school bus attendant for the last six years preceding the incident in this case. Respondents are members of the Hernando United School Workers Union (HUSW). For the 2007-2008, school year, both men were assigned by the School Board's Transportation Department to Bus 473, Route 22. During that school year, the bus carried between 50 and 60 children, ages kindergarten through eighth grade, to and from J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Student A.R. was one of these students. On October 5, 2007, A.R. was a three-year-old, female, pre-kindergarten, Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student. She was a special needs child, whose 2007-2008, Individualized Education Plan (IEP) called for her to have adult supervision while riding the bus. The School Board had implemented A.R.'s IEP for the 2007-2008, school year by placing Mr. DiPaolo on Mr. O'Brien's bus. Steve Daniels, Petitioner's ESE Driver Coordinator Specialist, provided Mr. DiPaolo with written confirmation of his assignment, which included information on A.R.'s grade level, bus stop, and need for a special seat restraint. Mr. DiPaolo first met A.R. at the beginning of the 2007-2008, school year. Mr. DiPaolo's assigned first and primary responsibility was the safety of A.R., which included buckling her into her child safety seat, but his second and subordinate responsibility was to maintain order on the bus and manage the safety of the other 50-60 children. Mr. O'Brien had met A.R. during the second semester of the 2006-2007, school year, when she was initially placed on his school bus route. During that school year, A.R. had ridden the bus driven by Mr. O'Brien without having a school bus attendant specifically devoted to her safety and exceptionalities. During that school year, Mr. O'Brien had been instrumental in getting a particular type of safety seat for A.R. to ride in, due to her small size. This type of seat is called "a C. E. White" or "CEW" child's safety seat, and has an integrated five-point harness. During the 2006-2007, school year, Mr. O'Brien's bus had no bus attendant. Therefore, during that period of time, he had ultimate responsibility for all the children on his bus, including A.R. During the 2006-2007, school year, A.R. was sometimes buckled into her bus safety seat by older siblings who rode the same bus, but Mr. O'Brien had a good rapport with A.R. and often also helped buckle her into her seat. To do so, he had to leave the bus driver's compartment of the bus. During the 2007-2008, school year, A.R. and one sister, R.R., who was then approximately nine years old, continued to ride Mr. O'Brien's bus. Mr. O'Brien was advised at the start of the 2007-2008, school year that A.R. would be riding with the adult supervision of Mr. DiPaolo. Mr. O'Brien was not made privy to the reasons why the decision had been made to require a bus attendant specifically for A.R., but he understood he was supposed to comply with this requirement, regardless of the reason. There also was testimony that any three-year-old attending kindergarten with a special bus attendant would be an ESE student. In assessing the relative credibility and weighing the testimony of all the witnesses, as well as hearing the comments made by R.R. on the videotape of the October 5, 2007, incident, it is found that A.R. was not a usually compliant and accepting bus passenger, but was frequently what any parent would recognize as difficult or oppositional. (See Finding of Fact 23.) Indeed, during the 2007-2008, school year prior to October 5, 2007, Mr. DiPaolo had twice sought direction from Mr. Daniels, who had told him to do the best he could with A.R., but if Mr. DiPaolo's "best" did not work out, something else might have to be done about A.R. A.R.'s father usually brought her to the bus stop. On the morning of October 5, 2007, a neighbor brought the two siblings to the bus stop. A.R. was already upset when boarding began. On October 5, 2007, A.R. did not want to get on the bus. Mr. DiPaolo had to go down to the first step of the bus to get A.R. from the neighbor who was supervising the sisters at the bus stop. Once A.R. made it to the top step of the bus entrance, she still did not want to move. Mr. DiPaolo had to lift her up and place her in her C.E. White seat, which was strapped-into the window-side of the first row seat, immediately inside the door on the side of the bus opposite the driver's side. Once there, A.R. deliberately slumped off the car seat onto the floor of the bus. When lifted up again, A.R. repeated the behavior. This "battle of wills" between the three-year-old and the bus attendant continued for a little while. Fairly quickly, however, Mr. DiPaolo retired from the field of battle to speak to some students in the back of the bus. At this point, A.R. was either sliding herself onto the floor or was on the floor between the first row of seats and the stairwell barricade. Despite some testimony to the effect that the older students in the back of the bus were rowdy and needed to be settled down, the video tape does not corroborate that "take" on the chain of events. While it might have been good strategy for Mr. DiPaolo to let A.R. cool off a little before again trying to buckle her into her seat, there does not appear to have been any pressing reason for Mr. DiPaolo to absent himself from her vicinity to address issues in the back of the bus. Moreover, A.R. was his first and prime responsibility, and he abandoned that responsibility by saying to A.R.'s sister, R.R., who was still standing and not in her own seat, that she should try to get A.R. buckled in, and he did not alert Mr. O'Brien that A.R. was not yet buckled-in. Mr. DiPaolo's superior, Mr. Daniels, would have sanctioned Mr. DiPaolo's enlisting the aid of the older sibling if Mr. DiPaolo also had not simply abandoned the situation and walked to the back of the bus. Mr. DiPaolo also could have, and did not, attempt to enlist the aid of the adult neighbor who had delivered A.R. to the bus stop, or he could have returned A.R. back to that adult neighbor and suggested the neighbor take A.R. to school separately, both of which were options his superiors testified they would have sanctioned. He could also have requested that Mr. O'Brien radio the dispatcher for help. He chose none of these options. As Mr. DiPaolo gave instructions to A.R.'s sister and walked to the back of the bus, Mr. O'Brien, not realizing that A.R. was not secured into her seat, pulled the bus away from the stop. Although Mr. O'Brien testified to several reasons that he believed A.R. was secured in her seat before he pulled the bus away from its stop, Mr. DiPaolo clearly had not orally advised him that she was buckled-in, and Mr. O'Brien did not, in fact, make sure that A.R. was secure before he pulled the bus into four-lane traffic. Moreover, the sister, R.R., was up and down while all this was going on. She was not always in her seat as the bus was moving, either. R.R. was not able to secure A.R. in her seat, so she approached the driver's compartment and stated to Mr. O'Brien that they were going to have to do things "the hard way." R.R.'s choice of words suggests that R.R. and Mr. O'Brien had previously had to buckle A.R. into her car seat by sheer force. Approximately 25 seconds after he started the bus, during which time the bus entered the flow of four lanes of traffic and proceeded through an intersection, Mr. O'Brien pulled the bus over to the side of the road and stopped. During the whole of this period, A.R. was not in her seat or buckled- in. When Mr. O'Brien pulled over, he put on the emergency brake and put the transmission in neutral. He intentionally left the bus engine running, because the doors on that type of bus are controlled by air pressure. Once the engine is turned off, the doors will open with just the touch of a hand from either inside or outside the door. For safety reasons, he wanted the door to remain secure. Under the circumstances, pulling over the bus was probably a wise move, but Mr. O'Brien went further. He could have summoned Mr. DiPaolo to come back and do his job as A.R.'s bus attendant, and he could have called dispatch to alert the administration to a problem requiring their help, but instead, Mr. O'Brien left the driver's compartment to check on A.R. When Mr. O'Brien reached her, A.R. was not in her seat. He lifted her up from the floor of the bus and attempted to buckle her into her seat. At first, Mr. O'Brien was not successful getting A.R. into her seat and asked her if she knew she was about to get "a spanking." Mr. O'Brien admitted to threatening to spank A.R. to "snap her out of it," and to emphasize the importance of complying with his demands, even though he knew that "corporal punishment" was against Petitioner's policies. His voice was firm in making the statement and more matter-of-fact than threatening. However, his threat was loud enough to be heard over the general commotion on the bus, the idling engine, and the sound of traffic. R.R. and at least a few nearby children must have heard the threat. When A.R. continued to physically resist Mr. O'Brien's efforts to get her into her seat, he administered a single, swift slap to her right buttocks/thigh area. A.R. did not cry out specifically at that point, although later she began to cry. After spanking A.R., Mr. O'Brien was able, unassisted, to wrestle her into her seat and buckle her in. At some point in Mr. O'Brien's struggle, Mr. DiPaolo returned and stood in the aisle, level with the back of A.R.'s seat, observing Mr. O'Brien interacting with A.R. and A.R. crying. The "driver's compartment" on Mr. O'Brien's bus does not show up well in the video and there was no testimony concerning how it is configured. However, it does not appear to be separated from the students' seats by a door or partition. The diagrams in the Operations Handbook show clear access to the driver's seat and controls from the student seats on the driver's side immediately behind the driver's seat, if the driver is not in his seat, regardless of whether anyone is blocking the aisle. During the entire period of time Mr. O'Brien was dealing with A.R., he had his back turned towards the driver's seat and controls, which he had left unattended. During this entire period of time, the bus engine continued running and the doors remained closed. However, Mr. O'Brien's bus has just a knob for an emergency brake and anyone could have hit the knob so that the bus would begin rolling forward. After securing A.R. and being sure R.R. also was safely seated, Mr. O'Brien returned to the driver's compartment and drove the bus to school. A.R.'s screaming, crying, and fussing seems to have escalated after Mr. O'Brien resumed the driver's seat, when Mr. DiPaolo said something to A.R. about his not being willing to sit with her. However, Mr. DiPaolo eventually sat next to A.R. and interacted with A.R. to keep her amused, and apparently happy, until the bus stopped again and the passengers debarked at J.D. Floyd Elementary School. Mr. O'Brien described the incident to A.R.'s classroom teacher when he delivered A.R. into her care at the school on October 5, 2007. He did not report it to Petitioner's Transportation Department, because it was, in his mind, a minor bit of misbehavior by a student. Mr. DiPaolo also made no report. The undersigned is not persuaded that either Mr. O'Brien or Mr. DiPaolo tried to keep the incident secret. One of Petitioner's own training manuals provides: Minor incidents of misbehavior such as getting out of the seat, standing, or speaking loudly are usually better handled on the bus. If every incident of misbehavior is reported to the principal, the operator will lose credibility. However, on the following Monday morning, A.R.'s mother boarded Mr. O'Brien's bus and made a scene, accusing Mr. O'Brien of spanking A.R. on her bottom. The mother then proceeded to Petitioner's administrative offices, where she lodged a complaint, and finally went on to the Sheriff's Office to do the same. Ultimately, because they are required to do so when there is an accusation of corporal punishment, Petitioner's administration notified the Department of Children and Family Services of the mother's allegations. After receiving the complaint, Linda Smith, Petitioner's Director of Transportation, requested a copy of the October 5, 2007, surveillance video from the front of Bus 473. That surveillance film was admitted in evidence and has been heavily relied-upon in this Recommended Order. The surveillance film from the back of the bus was not offered or admitted. Ms. Smith, and Ms. Rucell Nesmith, Petitioner's Operator Trainer/Safety Coordinator for Transportation, have each been involved in school bus transportation for over 30 years and both have served as drivers and as transportation administrators. They testified that Mr. O'Brien's conduct on October 5, 2007, violated Petitioner's policy on two basic levels: he left the driver's compartment while the bus was still running and still loaded with students, and he administered corporal punishment to a student. While bus attendants and drivers have some discretion in handling disruptive students or students like A.R., who are not following directions, they are not supposed to permit, or cause, a bus to leave a stop until every student is properly secured, and they are forbidden to use corporal punishment. Bus drivers/operators receive training, including training on Petitioner's Operations Handbook as well as training on the State-approved driver curriculum. Mr. O'Brien was certified as having completed the bus driver training on July 20, 2001. Mr. O'Brien attended annual in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. In-service trainings include, among other things, any updates to the Operations Handbook. General statements were also made during in-service trainings about not touching students. Mr. DiPaolo received his initial training as a bus driver from Ms. Nesmith and a copy of the Operations Handbook in 2001, when he first was hired by Petitioner. Mr. DiPaolo, and all bus attendants, receive initial training as bus attendants, including a review of Petitioner's Operations Handbook. Mr. DiPaolo also received in-service trainings thereafter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. In-service training included any updates to the Operations Handbook. Ms. Smith recommended discipline for Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo. She recommended a five-day suspension for Mr. O'Brien and a three-day suspension for Mr. DiPaolo. Petitioner scheduled a pre-disciplinary meeting concerning the incident for October 17, 2007. The meeting was postponed because Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo had obtained legal counsel. The meeting was eventually rescheduled for November 2007. Messrs. O'Brien and DiPaolo attended that meeting with their respective legal counsel, and it resulted in the November 7, 2007, charges addressed below and in the Conclusions of Law. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, Petitioner's Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. O'Brien, reprimanding him and issuing a five-day suspension without pay for leaving the driver's compartment; leaving the bus running while attending to A.R.; orally threatening to spank a student while attempting to put her into her seat; swatting the student on her posterior; and failing to immediately report to the Transportation Department the incident as a student safety issue. Mr. O'Brien was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (10)- On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board; Policy 6.301, Ethics: Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety; and (3) (e) not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and provisions in Petitioner's 2007 Staff Handbook prohibiting touching students except to protect their health, safety and/or welfare. Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. In accord with Ms. Smith's recommendation, the Superintendent issued a letter dated November 7, 2007, to Mr. DiPaolo, reprimanding him and issuing a three-day suspension without pay, for failing to place a student assigned specifically to him for supervision and assistance in her seat; walking to the back of the bus while the bus driver had to secure the student in her seat; and failing to immediately report the incident to the Transportation Department as a student safety issue. Mr. DiPaolo was cited in the letter for violations of Petitioner's policies, namely Policy 6.37, Group II, Section (13), Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties; Policy 6.37, Group III, Section (4), Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work; and Policy 6.301: Ethics, Section (3) (a) failure to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. Again, Policy 6.38 was cited as a disciplinary guideline. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 37, states, in pertinent part: Bus Aides 5. Drivers are to remain in the driver's compartment. The School Board's Operations Handbook, at page 59-Y, states, in pertinent part: Responsibilities of a School Bus Aide To load and unload students and assist driver as needed. * * * 3. To ensure that all students are secured and when appropriate, secure restraining devices, i.e. seat belts, safety vest, infant seats, and toddler seats. * * * 6. To recognize individual student capabilities and exceptionalities while maintaining order on the bus and administer to their individual needs as required. At page 59-D, the Operations Handbook provides, in pertinent part: Operating Procedure No. 27, Responsibilities of the School Bus Driver Related to Board of Education Rules 6A-3 25. To report immediately to the director or supervisor of transportation, school principal or other designated officials: a. Misconduct on the part of any student while on bus or under the driver's immediate supervision, The Department of Education Bureau of Professional Practices Services' handout, provided during training of bus drivers, provides, in pertinent part: INTERACTION WITH STUDENTS: Keep hands and other parts of your body to yourself. TIPS FOR STAFF WITH AGGRESSIVE STUDENTS: DON'TS: Do not physically handle the student. Do not react aggressively in return. * * * 5. Do not create punitive consequences to "get even" with the student. Department of Education Recommendation: Discipline The bus driver has no authority to slap, spank or abuse any child. By School Board policy, Petitioner has made the standards for educators applicable to even its non-educational personnel, such as bus attendants and bus drivers. Policy 6.301 concerns employee ethics and provides in pertinent part: (2) All employees shall familiarize themselves with the 'Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida,' located in the State Board of Education Rules. All employees shall abide by the Code at all times and shall be held to the standards of the Code in all matters related to their employment with the Hernando County School Board. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006, which is provided to Petitioner's employees with their copy of Petitioner's Policy 6.301, provides in pertinent part: Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. * * * e. Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner's Policy 6.301 (3), reads: The School Board of Hernando County supports strong internal control in its procedures and practices. All incidents of suspected improprieties should be reported using the Board approved Compliant [sic] Policy. Petitioner's 2007-2008 Staff Handbook provides, in pertinent part: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety, and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. School Board Policy 6.37 -- Group (II) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP II OFFENSES (13) Incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties. School Board Policy 6.37 - Group (III) provides, in pertinent part: GROUP III OFFENSES (4) Interfering with the work of other employees or refusal to perform assigned work. (10) On or off the job conduct which adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform his duties and/or the duties of other employees and/or adversely affects the efficient operation of the school system or any department, division, or area of the School Board. The parties stipulated that this case does not present a situation of progressive discipline, and accordingly, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to quote or discuss the levels of discipline permissible under Groups II and III of Policy 6.37 or Policy 6.38. It further appears that combinations of the penalties of written reprimand and suspension, with or without pay, are authorized, and each offense is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Also, it appears that all penalties listed in any School Board Policy are recommended, but not mandatory, to apply to specific offenses and that the penalty utilized is to be discretionary with management, per Policies 6.37, and 6.38. Policy 6.38, authorizes the Superintendent to suspend employees without pay for up to 10 days as a disciplinary measure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner: Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent O'Brien's reprimand and suspension without pay for five days; and Enter a Final Order sustaining Respondent DiPaolo's reprimand and suspension without pay for three days. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 15th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Hwy. 19 North, Ste. 110 Clearwater, FL 33761 Dr. Wayne Alexander, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
