The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board, charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation 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 contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, should be reprimanded and reassigned from her position as Countryside High School principal to a position as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office, at the same rate of pay.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, has been involved in the field of education for over 20 years. She moved to Volusia County in 1985 to begin her career in Florida. She began as assistant director of personnel but went through target selection and became an elementary school assistant principal, an elementary school principal, and then the principal of Volusia County's largest high school. She married and moved to Pinellas County in 1993 and was hired as an assistant principal at Gibbs High School for the 1993-94 school year. She was promoted to principal of Countryside High School for the 1994-95 school year. During her tenure in Pinellas County, Lambeth was a very effective principal and generally very well-liked (although, like almost all principals, she had her detractors as well as her supporters.) Lambeth's performance evaluations during her tenure in Pinellas County through May 8, 1998, have been excellent. Lambeth's employment as principal of Countryside High School has been under successive annual contracts with the Pinellas County Schools. The contract for the 1997/98 school year provided, in pertinent part: . . . The Board may, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, transfer and assign the Employee to a similar position in any other location of the district, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned, and the salary shall be heretofore set forth. * * * 5. The Board may suspend or remove the Employee for just cause. The Employee shall not be entitled to receive any salary from and after the date of such suspension or removal unless such suspension is revoked and in no event shall the Employee be entitled to any compensation subsequent to the cancellation of this contract. * * * 11. Failure of either party to fulfill the obligations under this contract, and to carry out the lawful provisions, hereof, or as otherwise provided by law, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of this contract by the other party, provided, however, no termination shall be effective without reasonable notice. On April 28, 1998, Lambeth again was appointed to a position for the 1998/99 school year, "subject to assignment and transfer." Lambeth accepted the appointment on May 8, 1998. There exist Pinellas Administrators Association Personnel Practices and Grievance Procedures. These documents were developed jointly by the Superintendent of Schools and the Executive Board of the Pinellas Administrators Association; they were approved by the School Board on July 14, 1976. The Personnel Practices provide in pertinent part: COMPLAINTS A. Complaints, oral or written, involving administrators or supervisors shall be investigated through line offices. A copy of such a complaint shall be immediately forwarded to the employee concerned so that he may respond. The employee shall be entitled to know the name of the person or group making the complaint. * * * TERMINATION Termination for Cause. Administrative and supervisory personnel may be terminated for cause on the same grounds as delineated in F.S. 231.36(6) at the discretion of the School Board. Termination shall include discharge, suspension without pay, demotion in salary or status, or any other action involving fault on the part of such administrator or supervisor. * * * C. Any administrator or supervisor terminated for cause subjected to a personnel action as defined above shall have the right to register his complaint through the Pinellas administrators' grievance procedures. However, the significance of these documents is not clear; nor is it clear that they are still are applicable at this time. They apparently are not duly promulgated School Board policy, and the School Board does not refer to them in the conduct of its employment relationships. They also are not part of Lambeth's employment contract. Even if generally applicable, it also was not clear whether they would apply to administrators who are not members of the Pinellas Administrators Association, and there was no evidence that Lambeth is a member. In August 1997, someone approached Countryside assistant principal, Kathleen Novak, to explain the circumstances of a 1997 graduate. The student was a few points short of the minimum grade required in certain core high school courses by either his college's admission requirements, the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) athletic scholarship requirements, or both. Novak went to her principal, Lambeth, to discuss the matter. Another assistant principal, Paula Flott, also participated in the discussion. The outcome of the discussion was that Lambeth asked Novak and Flott to try to contact "their" teachers (i.e., the teachers "assigned" to them for purposes of supervision and division of duties) to find out if there were any grades that could be raised enough through re-testing to meet the minimum requirements the student needed to meet. Before contacting the teachers, Novak first had occasion to confer with yet another assistant principal, Henry Moore. Moore helped Novak review the student's report cards and identified two grades he thought could be raised enough to give the student the minimum grade required. One was a "mid-point" grade in a history class the student took during his junior year (1995-96). Under School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.24(2)(g): "At the mid-point of each grade level, i.e., 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, .5, it will be the option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Moore also identified a psychology grade from the student's senior year (1996-97) which was borderline. It is not clear from the evidence whether Moore thought it was necessary to contact the history teacher, David Ferguson, about the mid-point grade. Moore understood Countyside's unwritten policy to be that, if a student improved his or her grade during the grading period, a mid-point grade would be increased to the next higher whole number or letter grade unless the teacher went to the principal to justify deviating from the policy. There was some evidence to suggest that Moore thought Lambeth, as principal, could raise the mid-point grade without re-testing; but the evidence was not clear that Moore communicated this to Novak or Lambeth at the time. In any event, Moore testified to his assumption that Novak would next contact the teachers concerning re-evaluation of the two grades. The next day, Novak reported to Lambeth the results of her conversation with Moore. Lambeth decided that the student should re-take the final examinations in both classes. She testified that she instructed Novak to contact the teachers about the re-evaluations and re-testing. Novak denied receiving explicit instructions to contact the teachers at this point. It is found that Novak would not have disregarded a direct instruction to contact the teachers. It is more probable that Lambeth simply instructed Novak to proceed to take care of it and assumed that Novak would contact the teachers. Novak also saw Flott that day. Flott told Novak that Flott had not contacted any of "her" teachers yet. Novak told Flott not to worry about it, that Novak had "taken care of it." Flott assumed Novak meant Novak had contacted the teachers. Actually, Novak meant that, since the two grades Novak and Moore already had been identified were enough, there was no need for Flott to contact any of "her" teachers. At this time during the summer, the teachers were on vacation, and Novak researched files of past exams maintained by the school administration to document grades and reproduced the final exams for the grades she and Moore had identified. Novak then made arrangements for the student to retake the exams and notified Lambeth that the student had improved his grades enough to meet the student's college requirements. When Novak reported to Lambeth, the deadline for the student's college requirements was imminent. Lambeth assumed but did not ask whether Novak had contacted the teachers whose grades were involved. Lambeth did not ask to see any documentation of the teachers' assent to a grade change or any documentation of the retesting. Lambeth just told Novak to change the grades in the official records and notify the college and/or the NCAA. Novak responded that she did not know how to do this. Lambeth told her to get assistance from clerical personnel who knew how to change grades; Lambeth herself took care of notifying the college and/or the NCAA. To notify the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth modified a form used by Countryside's athletic department to document that a student-athlete's grade had been properly re-evaluated so as to regain eligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics. The form utilized had a place for the signature of the teacher whose grade was being re-evaluated. In modifying the form for purposes of notifying the college and/or the NCAA, Lambeth deleted the provision for the teacher's signature. Lambeth signed the form as principal on August 15, 1997, and sent the notification to the college and/or the NCAA. Lambeth denied that she deleted the teacher signature provision in the form because she knew the teachers were unaware of the grade re-evaluations. Although the teachers were at school on August 15, 1997, preparing for the start of the 1997-98 school year, Lambeth said she dispensed with the teacher signature provision in order to expedite the notification. A few days after the start of the 1997-98 school year, the girl friend of the student whose grades were changed told Ferguson that the student had retaken Ferguson's final exam. Ferguson was busy and told the girl that they would discuss it later, which they did about a month later. For another month or more, Ferguson did nothing about it. Towards the end of October or early November 1997, Ferguson approached Lambeth to let her know what had happened and that students were talking about it. To his surprise, Lambeth told him she knew all about it, having been directly involved herself in the grade re-evaluation. Lambeth did not act as if she saw anything wrong with what was done; she even seemed proud of her participation. Ferguson, who did not think it was right for one of his assigned grades to be re-evaluated without his knowledge, was taken off-guard by Lambeth's response and decided not to say anything else about it at the time. In about December 1997, Ferguson found the time to spend several hours looking into the circumstances of the grade re-evaluations. He discovered that the grades were changed in the student's official transcript, but that the changes were not otherwise documented. The lack of documentation also seemed wrong to Ferguson. During the spring semester of the 1997-98 school year, Ferguson approached Jim Watters, the psychology teacher whose assigned grade was changed. By this time, Watters was at a different school, and Ferguson thought it would be logical for Watters to be the one to complain about the grade changes since Ferguson not only still was at Countryside but also had to deal with Lambeth in his capacity as Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA) union representative. Watters told Ferguson that he did not want to complain because he was near retirement and did not want controversy at that point in his career. Subsequently, Ferguson sought the advice of the PCTA as to whether he would be opening himself to discipline if he did not report the incident to the school district administration. It was concluded that the incident should be reported. On April 23, 1998, Rik McNeill of the PCTA contacted Dr. Martha O'Howell, an administrator in the school district's Office of Professional Standards, to report the grade change incident; the next day, Jade Moore of the PCTA sent O'Howell a letter reporting the incident. On or about April 30, 1998, O'Howell's office began an investigation of the reported incident. On May 11, 1998, O'Howell interviewed Lambeth, Novak, and others at Countryside and took written statements from them. When O'Howell told Lambeth that teachers had complained, Lambeth wondered aloud why, since they had participated. Novak's statement, on the other hand, was that the teachers were not notified or involved because they were not at school at the time. On May 14, 1998, O'Howell re-interviewed Lambeth and Novak. In her re-interview of Lambeth, the principal maintained her understanding that Novak had discussed re-testing with the teachers whose grades were involved. During her re-interview of Novak, O'Howell asked Novak for the second time to produce the re-tests she administered, but Novak reiterated that she could not find the re-tests or any documentation that re-testing had in fact taken place. She got the impression that O'Howell questioned the truth of her assertion that re-tests actually had been administered and became defensive. Novak got the impression that it was very important for her to be able to produce the re- tests. On May 21, 1998, Novak submitted a supplement to her earlier written statement. In the supplement, Novak expressed confusion about Ferguson's complaint in light of her recollection that Ferguson had told her "emphatically last year that it wasn't his responsibility to give early exams or make up exams if they might extend beyond contract hours" and said: "That's administration's problem, not mine." Afraid of what might happen to her if she could not produce the re-tests (that it could end her career and jeopardize her retirement benefits), Novak panicked. She tried to again re- produce the examination questions, and she forged answers. She presented the forgeries to O'Howell on June 2, 1998. O'Howell quickly saw through Novak's inept forgeries for what they were, and Novak was in even more trouble than she thought she was in before the forgeries. On or about June 9, 1998, Lambeth asked for a meeting with the investigator and Area Supervisor Bill Williamson. Their assessment of the situation was that it was "serious"; they suggested that Lambeth consider what parents would think. But Lambeth also knew about Novak's forgeries and assumed that Novak had become the focus of the investigation, not her. Indeed, at a meeting on June 18, 1998, O'Howell informed Novak that her job was in jeopardy; O'Howell said she was prepared to recommend that the Superintendent terminate her employment. At that point, Novak retained an attorney, who asked to meet with the School Superintendent, J. Howard Hinesley, and the School Board's attorney, Wesley Bridges. The meeting took place on June 24, 1998. At the meeting on June 24, 1998, Novak and her attorney tried to explain to Hinesley and Bridges why Novak forged the re- tests. They also told Hinesley and Bridges that Novak thought Lambeth was trying to blame Novak for the incident but that Lambeth never told Novak to contact the teachers whose grades were involved. Hinesley took this and other information given by Novak at the meeting into consideration in evaluating the situation. Based on the discussion at this meeting, Hinesley decided to reprimand and demote Novak to an instructional position with no reduction in pay, instead of terminating her employment. On or about June 29, 1998, Area Supervisor Williamson told Lambeth that it was time to have a meeting to resolve the matter. Williamson again emphasized that it was "serious," this time communicating to Lambeth that she was also in jeopardy. The meeting was set for July 2, 1998. At this point, Lambeth hired an attorney. The meeting was attended by Lambeth, Hinesley, their attorneys, Williamson, and O'Howell. Lambeth was informed that she was being removed as principal at Countryside for her role in the grade change incident and would be transferred to another position. She was told that a letter to that effect had been mailed to her. She was required to hand over her office keys and was told to make arrangement to clean-out her office at 5 p.m. She was told that she would not be allowed to return to campus without campus police being present. Campus police escorted her to her car. On or about July 8, 1998, Lambeth received Hinesley's letter dated July 2, 1998. Besides reciting facts found through the investigation, the letter accused Lambeth of failing "to ensure that the teachers of the two courses involved had knowledge of or approved the final examination re-takes and the subsequent grade changes" and "to ensure that the re-takes were properly administered and graded and that the results were documented." The letter reprimanded Lambeth for "violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23, as well as the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida." (School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.23 sets the district's High School Credit and Student Performance Standards; section (6) of the rule provides that a student's mastery of performance standards "shall be determined by the teacher with the principal's approval.") The letter also stated that Lambeth's conduct "reflects a lack of sound professional judgment and seriously diminishes your effectiveness as a school leader." As a result, the letter stated, Lambeth was being removed her from her position as Countryside High School principal, was being placed on administrative leave, and would be reassigned to another position. By letter dated July 8, 1998, Hinesley notified Lambeth that she was being reassigned as a supervisor with the school system's Title I office. Lambeth's contract was not changed, and her pay was not reduced. Her new position is classified as Level 4 in the School Board's personnel system, while high school principal is a Level 8 position. There are some similarities between the two positions, but there also are differences. Both positions require a master's degree, certification in administration and supervision, and five years of related professional experience; a program supervisor for Title I also requires an additional minimum of three years of teaching experience. Both positions involve working with teachers; but while a principal supervises 95 teachers (plus non-teacher personnel and 1500 to 2000 students) at a school site, a Title I program supervisor works with but does not supervise principals, assistant principals, and teachers at 18 different elementary schools. Both jobs involve budget planning, but the nature of the budgets are different; a Title I program supervisor reviews budgets for federal funds. There is no provision for re-evaluating a student's grades after graduation. There is a policy to allow a student who has passed all 24 courses required to graduate, but did not earn the minimum grade point average (GPA) required to receive a diploma, to "walk" at graduation , receive a "certificate of completion," and return to school in the summer and/or an additional year of high school to re-take classes to hopefully raise his or her GPA enough to receive a high school diploma. But there is no evidence that the student involved in this case did not receive a diploma when he graduated at the end of the 1996-97 school year. He was no longer a student and should not have been able to change his grades at that point. In circumstances when it would be permissible to re- evaluate a student's grades, it should only be done in consultation with the teacher who assigned the grade. Subject to the requirement that grading policies are followed, student grading is the province of the teacher's exercise of professional judgment, subject only to the principal's approval. The integrity of the grading system depends the teacher's exercise of professional judgment. Likewise, the "education contract" among the administration, teachers, students, and parents presumes and requires integrity in the grading process. School Board Policy 6Gx52-8.28(4)(g) is clear that, in the case of "mid-point" grades, it is the "option of the teacher, subject to review by the principal, as to whether the higher or lower grade will be given." Clearly, this policy gives the principal the ability to review the teacher's grade and argue forcefully that a different grade should be assigned. Some teachers would succumb to the principal's choice, either because of the force of the principal's arguments or because of fear of the possible consequences of disagreeing with their principal. The policy may even enable a principal to overrule the teacher. But it is a violation of policy for a principal to change a grade without following the mid-point grade policy. Because of the importance of integrity in the grading system, it is incumbent on the principal to take reasonable steps to ensure that teachers are involved in any grade re-evaluation. Clearly, a principal must delegate responsibilities to assistant principals when necessary and appropriate, and a principal should be entitled to rely on an assistant principal to follow the principal's instructions (whether expressed ad hoc or in policy). For that reason, Lambeth normally would have been entitled to expect an assistant principal to involve the teacher in any grade re-evaluation. But re-evaluation of a student who had graduated was not normal, and Lambeth should have made it clear to Novak that Novak was not to proceed with re-testing and grade re- evaluation without the teachers' participation. It is not clear from the evidence that Lambeth made reasonable efforts make this clear to Novak. By the same token, because the situation was not normal, Lambeth should have made some effort to ensure that Novak properly documented the re-take of the examinations and the grade change instead of relying entirely on Novak. There is no question but that Lambeth's effectiveness as a school leader diminished as a result of this grade change incident. As Lambeth pointed out at final hearing, most principals have their supporters and detractors, and predictably there were some teachers and parents who testified that the grade change incident did not reduce Lambeth's effectiveness as far as they were concerned. But most of these witnesses did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives. Meanwhile, there were many witnesses who testified that Lambeth's effectiveness was seriously diminished in their view, and they were not all detractors of Lambeth; they included Hinesley, other Pinellas County school administrators, retired Pinellas County School Superintendent Scott Rose, administrators from other school districts, teachers at other schools, and parents. Some of these also did not know all of the facts and circumstances of the case and spoke from their limited perspectives; but some knew all or most of the facts and circumstances and spoke from broader perspectives. Some witnesses expressed the idea that the reduction in effectiveness would not be insurmountable or permanent if Lambeth would admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again. Unfortunately, Lambeth did not admit error until her testimony at the end of her case-in-chief. While she complained that she was not given the opportunity to do so before the meeting on July 2, 1998, she missed innumerable opportunities since; indeed, much of her case seemed aimed at proving that she had done nothing wrong. The authenticity of her eleventh-hour repentance is suspect. At the same time, while Lambeth's effectiveness certainly was diminished by the incident (and her refusal to admit her error, ask for forgiveness, and promise not to do it again), it is not clear just how seriously her effectiveness has been diminished. There were mitigating factors. First, Lambeth has an excellent record as an effective administrator. Second, while her efforts were misguided, her motive was to help a student gain educational benefits. The student was African- American and, while the Petitioner criticized Lambeth for testifying in deposition that the student's minority status was a factor in her efforts to help, the School Board in fact has a policy of emphasizing the delivery of educational benefits to minority students. Also, after what she has been through, it seems unlikely that Lambeth would be foolish enough to repeat this or any similar grade change blunder in the future. A reprimand and reassignment to Title I program supervisor certainly is a setback for Lambeth's career as a school principal. But, contrary to Lambeth's concern and contention in this case, it is found that such an action does not necessarily mean the end of Lambeth's career as a school principal in this or any other school district. Certainly, if Lambeth's offense is as minor as she contends it was, she may well be able to convince a school superintendent other than Hinesley to assign her as a school principal. It certainly seemed that retired School Superintendent Rose would have been open to the idea; there is no reason to be certain that others may not also consider Lambeth for a principal position. If Hinesley's position as Pinellas School Superintendent is as tenuous as Lambeth's evidence attempted to suggest (i.e., that he may be just one School Board vote from being the former Pinellas School Superintendent), the chances are that it may not be long before Lambeth could apply to a subsequent Pinellas School Superintendent for such a position. It even seems possible (although perhaps not likely) that Hinesley himself might reconsider and reassign Lambeth as a principal at some point in the future. Lambeth also contended that other School Board employees have been treated more leniently for worse offenses. But the evidence did not prove selective enforcement against Lambeth. The other situations either were too dissimilar to compare, or Lambeth's treatment was not clearly excessively harsh by comparison. Lambeth first points to the treatment of Novak. While it is true that Novak forged the re-tests, she was Lambeth's subordinate and subject to Lambeth's direction, and her treatment (reassignment to a completely nonsupervisory position) was somewhat harsher than Lambeth's. Lambeth also points to Ferguson, who Lambeth contends went unpunished after alleged violation of School Board Policy 6Gx52-6.22 by posting a copy of a portion of the School Board's investigative report on Lambeth and Novak on the bulletin board in the teacher's lounge. But Policy 6Gx52-6.22 provides: Employees shall not use the classroom, nor any other part of school facilities, as a platform for making disparaging remarks against students, parents, teachers and/or administrators. Conduct contrary to this policy may constitute grounds for disciplinary action. In addition, it is not clear that posting information about an investigation that was of genuine concern to the teachers is the same thing as using the bulletin board "as a platform for making disparaging remarks." Nonetheless, Lambeth's replacement as Countryside's principal considered the posting to be bad for morale and asked Ferguson to remove it. Initially, Ferguson refused to remove it; eventually, he removed it at the request of and as a favor to Jade Moore of the PCTA. (The evidence was that Hinesley was not aware of the posting.) Lambeth's other evidence on this point consisted of letters of reprimand to a principal and an assistant principal for not following proper procedures and immediately notifying the proper authorities of allegations of sexual abuse. It is not clear that these offenses are so similar to Lambeth's as to have required the School Board in fairness to also remove and reassign them.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for a Name Clearing, Due Process and Florida Statute 120.57 Hearing and approving the reassignment of the Respondent, Sharon Lambeth, to Title I program supervisor under the same contract and at the same pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Orange Park Center 696 First Avenue, North, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers & Coleman, P.A. 133 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
Findings Of Fact Prior to May 18, 1977, the Respondent was employed by the School Board as a driver education teacher and head football coach at Miami South Ridge High School. At approximately 3:00 A.M. on May 15, 1977, the Respondent left his home in Miami, Florida, and drove to the back of a business located at 7211 S. W. 40th Street in Miami, Florida. John F. Allen operates a boat, motor, and trailer sales, service, and repair business at that location. In the back of the building there is a work area that is surrounded by a chain link fence. Customers' boats and motors are stored in this area while work is done on them in the shop. The Respondent walked down an alleyway along the fenced area, and climbed over the fence. He removed an outboard motor from a boat, and pulled it away from the boat toward the fence. The Respondent did not work in the boat yard, and he was not authorized to be there after regular business hours. There was no direct evidence as to the Respondent's intentions. The circumstance of his being in the fenced in portion of the boat yard at between 3:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. and the circumstance of his removing an outboard motor from a boat, and carrying it toward the fence, lead inescapably to the conclusion that the Respondent was seeking to steal the engine. The Respondent did not remove the engine from the boat yard. For unknown reasons, he abandoned his effort to steal the engine and left the boat yard. The Respondent was not armed with any weapon, and no other person was in the boat yard while he was there. The outboard engine which the Respondent was attempting to steal was a 40 horsepower Johnson outboard engine. The weight of the engine is approximately 140 pounds. The engine has a wholesale value of approximately $250. Even if the engine were in the worst possible operating condition, it would still be worth approximately $150. While the Respondent was in the boat yard, two police officers employed by the Dade County Public Safety Department were undertaking a routine patrol of the area in an unmarked car. They observed the Respondent's automobile parked adjacent to the boat yard. One of the officers walked along the chain link fence in back of the boat yard and observed the Respondent inside the yard holding an engine. There was heavy vegetation along the fence, but the police officer was able to see through it at one point. The officer went back to his car, and told his partner what he had witnessed. Shortly thereafter the Respondent came out of the alley, got into his car, and drove away. The police officers turned on a flashing light in their car, pulled up behind the Respondent's car, and stopped him. The Respondent was placed under arrest. The police officer read the Respondent his rights from a "Miranda card". During interrogation after the arrest the Respondent pointed out the motor that he had removed from the boat, and told the officers were he had gotten it. The Respondent was then taken to a police station where he was fingerprinted, and later released on bail. A criminal action is now pending against the Respondent in the courts in Dade County. Tools of a sort which could have been used in perpetration of a burglary were found in the Respondent's pockets and on the floor of the Respondent's automobile by the police after they stopped him. There was no evidence presented that these tools were used by the Respondent in breaking into the boat yard or in removing the outboard engine from the boat. There was no evidence that the Respondent intended to use the tools for these purposes. There was evidence presented that the tools were put in the automobile by a friend of the Respondent's wife. There is insufficient evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent intended to use the tools to commit any trespass or burglary. The School Board acted promptly to suspend the Respondent from his position at South Ridge High School. The instant proceeding ensued.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ferrier holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 864022, covering the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, and middle grades integrated curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to this case, Mr. Ferrier was employed as a teacher at either Pinellas Park Middle School (Pinellas Park) or Seminole Middle School (Seminole) in the Pinellas County School District (School District). Petitioner, Dr. Eric Smith, at all times pertinent to this case, is acting as the Florida Commissioner of Education, pursuant to his authority in section 1012.796(6). Mr. Ferrier began teaching at Pinellas Park in the 2006- 2007 school year. The record shows by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ferrier’s performance during the three school years, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, was characterized by a lack of organization, failure to effectively communicate with parents and students, failure to provide students with grades and collect school work, and discord. Ms. Gorman, an assistant principal for Pinellas Park, was Mr. Ferrier’s immediate supervisor. She evaluated Mr. Ferrier’s performance for the three years that he taught at Pinellas Park. Ms. Gorman’s first evaluation of Mr. Ferrier for the 2006-2007 school year shows that he earned a score of "1" which indicates Mr. Ferrier was satisfactory. A rating less than level "1" is deemed unsatisfactory. Further, the 2006-2007 evaluation shows that Ms. Gorman expected Mr. Ferrier to make progress in 11 out of 23 areas she assessed in the evaluation. The evaluation form contained 25 areas for assessment. Mr. Ferrier’s evaluation shows that Ms. Gorman left two assessment areas blank. For the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier at a level "2" with progress expected in 10 of the 25 areas assessed. Mr. Ferrier’s 2007-2008 evaluation showed that he was satisfactory. For the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting the minimum expectations for teaching. Out of the 25 measured categories, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting expectation in 17 categories. Mr. Ferrier failed to meet expectations for subject knowledge; instructional method; respect for students, parents, and colleagues; engaging students; and use of technology in the classroom. Mr. Ferrier’s tenure at Pinellas Park was also characterized by repeated failures to answer calls made by parents, disorganization, poor attendance at meetings, arriving to school and classes late, and not acting as a professional in dealing with colleagues. Ms. Witcher, the Pinellas Park principal, provided credible testimony showing Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization and propensity for arriving late to school. For example, in the 2008-2009 school year, on the first day of school for returning teachers, Mr. Ferrier arrived at noon as opposed to 8:30 a.m. When asked by Ms. Witcher why he was late, Mr. Ferrier explained that he did not know that school began on that date. Mr. Ferrier’s tardiness was indicative of his behavior. Ms. Witcher clearly testified that on a "few occasions during the first and second year . . . he was so tardy, I had to go down and open the classroom door, let the kids in and wait for him." The record clearly also shows that Mr. Ferrier failed to be responsive to parent concerns about their children. Ms. Northcutt, the guidance counselor for Pinellas Park, provided credible testimony showing that Mr. Ferrier failed to return parent phone calls, failed to attend parent-teacher meetings, and, if Mr. Ferrier did attend the meeting, he was disorganized and unprepared. The frequency of parents calling Ms. Northcutt to ask Mr. Ferrier to contact them became so great that she "felt almost like a personal secretary to Mr. Ferrier," asking him to return phone calls. In addition to being unresponsive to phone calls, the record clearly shows, through Ms. Northcutt’s testimony and e-mails admitted into evidence, that Mr. Ferrier either failed to show up for parent-teacher conferences, or was late and unprepared if he did attend the conference. Parents would contact Ms. Northcutt in her capacity as the guidance counselor because the parents had concerns about Mr. Ferrier’s teaching and grading. Mr. Ferrier would routinely fail to timely enter grades of assignments into the computer system so that parents could check their child’s progress. The record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier lacked insight into his professional shortcomings. The record clearly showed that Mr. Ferrier was offered assistance to help him become an organized and effective teacher, but failed to avail himself of the assistance. Further, Mr. Ferrier objected to Ms. Witcher’s direction that he not coach the volleyball team and concentrate on teaching. In response to this directive, Mr. Ferrier encouraged parents of the volleyball players to contact Ms. Witcher to change her decision. The record also shows that, during Mr. Ferrier’s tenure at Pinellas Park, he did not act as a professional in dealing with colleagues. This finding is based on the events concerning Mr. Ferrier’s placement on administrative leave while the School District investigated him for bullying a co-worker, and his subsequent action after returning from administrative leave. Ms. Northcutt credibly testified that, based on Mr. Ferrier’s repeated failures to either attend parent-teacher conferences or be on time for them, she began to document these actions and inform Ms. Witcher. At one parent-teacher conference, Ms. Northcutt noted that Mr. Ferrier arrived late, although the parents had not yet arrived. Mr. Ferrier told Ms. Northcutt to note that he had arrived on time, which she replied that he was still late. Two other teachers, who were to attend the conference, also arrived late. One of the teachers had permission due to a conflict, and the other teacher arrived after attending another conference. Mr. Ferrier demanded that Ms. Northcutt report the two teachers as late. Ms. Northcutt credibly testified that she felt threatened and intimidated by Mr. Ferrier’s confrontational behavior. She reported the incident to Ms. Witcher, who referred the incident to the School District, and an investigation was begun. The School District placed Mr. Ferrier on administrative leave, and Ms. Witcher informed Mr. Ferrier that he was to leave the campus quietly. As Mr. Ferrier was leaving the campus, he told everyone that he encountered that he was accused of bullying and that he would return. Ms. Witcher felt that Mr. Ferrier’s actions were divisive and sought to undermine her new administration at the school. When Mr. Ferrier returned to the school from the administrative leave, Mr. Lott, the School District’s administrator for the Office of Professional Standards, informed Mr. Ferrier to be very careful in his interactions with Ms. Northcutt. Within two days of his return, Mr. Ferrier sent all of the Pinellas Park personnel an e-mail stating that he had been wrongly accused of bullying and that he had been exonerated. Mr. Lott found this action to be inappropriate and a continuation of Mr. Ferrier’s efforts to bully Ms. Northcutt. Consequently, based on this action, Mr. Ferrier received a written reprimand and was involuntarily transferred from Pinellas Park to Seminole. The purpose of transferring Mr. Ferrier to Seminole was to provide him with a fresh start. Unfortunately, the record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier’s short tenure at Seminole was again characterized by ineffective teaching, lack of knowledge of materials he was expected to teach, lack of communication with parents, tardiness, and failure to follow directions to become an effective teacher. Mr. Lechner, the principal at Seminole, assigned Mr. Ferrier to teach regular science classes and three advanced honor science classes. The parents at Seminole are actively involved in their children’s education. Thus, many of Mr. Ferrier’s short-comings were quickly brought to the attention of Mr. Lechner. The record shows that Mr. Lechner was pro-active in assessing Mr. Ferrier’s teaching, offering Mr. Ferrier assistance to become an effective teacher, and ultimately removing Mr. Ferrier from the classroom. The record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier failed to carry out his duties as a teacher. Specifically, the evidence clearly showed the following instances: Mr. Ferrier was disorganized in the classroom. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization in the classroom was apparent from the very beginning of his tenure at Seminole. During an open house for parents, Mr. Ferrier, in addressing parents of honor students, did not have a syllabus for the class, pointed out text books that he stated the class probably would not use, and discussed at length discipline issues with the parents. The record shows, however, that honor students typically did not cause discipline problems. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization quickly led students to becoming frustrated in the classroom and parents complaining to Mr. Lechner. Further, this disorganization was reflected in Mr. Ferrier’s losing assignments, failing to properly log grades into the school computer system so that parents could access the grades, and losing test results. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization in the classroom was further documented by Mr. Lechner, who placed Mr. Ferrier on a Professional Service Contract Probation for 90 days during the school year, beginning on September 28, 2009. Mr. Lechner conducted personal observations of Mr. Ferrier’s instruction and found it disorganized, confusing, and resulting in students becoming frustrated. Mr. Lechner gave Mr. Ferrier specific instructions on how to improve his teaching, but Mr. Ferrier failed to follow the instructions. Mr. Ferrier continued to be tardy to class and miss important faculty meetings. The record shows through Mr. Lechner’s testimony that Mr. Ferrier missed the teachers’ mandatory first professional learning community meeting. Although Mr. Lechner could not remember the reason that Mr. Ferrier gave for missing the meeting, Mr. Lechner testified that Mr. Ferrier "always had an excuse." Based on Mr. Lechner’s answer, it was clear that Mr. Ferrier made excuses for his failures, as opposed to acknowledging his mistakes. The record further showed that Mr. Ferrier’s tardiness often would extend into the day. The testimony showed that Mr. Ferrier would leave campus and return from lunch 15 minutes late, thus, delaying instruction. As a result of Mr. Ferrier’s habitual tardiness, Mr. Lechner required Mr. Ferrier to use a sign-in and sign-out log. Mr. Ferrier used ineffective instructional methods and did not have a grasp of the material that he was to teach. The parents and students, who testified, were unanimous in their consensus that Mr. Ferrier failed to teach anything. Mr. Ferrier’s failure to teach resulted in one student having to "steal" one of the text books that Mr. Ferrier was not using and teach herself physical science. Further, the testimony was clear that, after Mr. Ferrier was relieved of his teaching duties, the students had to "cram" a year’s worth of science into half a school year. In essence, Mr. Ferrier cheated the students out of an education. The conclusion that Mr. Ferrier used ineffective instructional methods and did not have a grasp of the material that he was to teach is supported by the testimony of Ms. Lamy and Mr. Lechner. The record clearly showed that Mr. Ferrier used "bell work" for a significant period of the teaching time. "Bell work" was defined as work given to students for the first few minutes of class to engage them immediately. Ms. Lamy, who was the School District’s supervisor for secondary science, conducted an in-classroom observation of Mr. Ferrier’s teaching at Seminole. Ms. Lamy noted that Mr. Ferrier used "bell work" for almost the entire class time. As a result, Mr. Ferrier did not teach. Further, Ms. Lamy observed that Mr. Ferrier did not have control of his class and did not have an adequate lesson plan. Based on her observations, Ms. Lamy made recommendations for Mr. Ferrier on handling the classroom and preparing lesson plans. Unfortunately, the record shows that Mr. Ferrier did not take full advantage of the help being offered to him. Mr. Lechner’s testimony also provided examples from classroom observations that demonstrated Mr. Ferrier’s poor instructional methods and lack of understanding of the material he was supposed to teach. For example, Mr. Lechner described a laboratory experiment conducted by Mr. Ferrier. Mr. Ferrier attempted to conduct an experiment demonstrating how an object could change physical states by melting a candy bar. During the experiment, Mr. Ferrier did not use safety gloves when attempting to melt the chocolate bar. Because the chocolate bar did not melt quickly, Mr. Ferrier left the experiment and never came back to it or the concept behind the experiment. According to Mr. Lechner, Mr. Ferrier modeled poor safety for the students by not using safety gloves and leaving the flame on the candy bar while he moved to another subject, and Mr. Ferrier did not teach the concept behind the experiment. The record showed that Mr. Ferrier would use ineffective methods to teach, such as relying on videos. In one instance, Mr. Ferrier used videos of Michael Jackson and throwing a wadded-up piece of paper in order to demonstrate motion. Finally, in December 2009, during an observation, Mr. Lechner observed Mr. Ferrier teach the students a wrong formula concerning distance over time, which was not corrected until the error was pointed out by a student. Mr. Ferrier did not manage work assignments and tests and failed to properly record grades. The record shows that students would turn in work, but the work would not be graded or posted into the school’s computer system so that parents and students could access the information. Further, parents and students complained to Mr. Lechner about erroneous grades, missing grades or assignments, or no grades for tests that had been completed, as well as grades which were either excessively high or excessively low. Mr. Ferrier failed to respond to parental inquiries and was unprepared and untimely when attending parent-teacher meetings. One parent testified about attending a parent-teacher conference, with Mr. Lechner, where Mr. Ferrier failed to show up. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization resulted in him failing to turn students’ answer sheets for mandatory progress monitoring tests into the district office. As Ms. Lamy explained, the state required school districts to turn in students’ answer sheets from the test to the Department by December 15, 2010. When the School District started receiving feedback from the tests, Ms. Lamy learned that Mr. Ferrier had not turned in the answer sheets. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrier turned in the answer sheets on or near January 6, 2011. Based on Mr. Ferrier’s actions, the School District was not in compliance with the state-ordered mandate. On January 19, 2011, after the 90-day probation period, Mr. Lechner evaluated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting the minimum expectations for teaching. Mr. Ferrier did not meet expectations in 23 of 25 categories, including the areas of subject knowledge, instructional methods, respect for students and parents, engaging students, use of technology, classroom discipline, and organization. Further, Mr. Lechner noted, based on his observations, that Mr. Ferrier continued to be disorganized, his directions were not clear, he was causing confusion, and he was returning papers to students without feedback. The record shows that well into the 90-day probation Mr. Ferrier finally sought assistance, at the insistence of Mr. Lechner, from the Professional Development and Improvement Network to help him become a better teacher. Unfortunately, the record shows that Mr. Ferrier’s teaching ability did not improve and that he continued with many of the same problems that he had at Pinellas Park. The record shows that Mr. Ferrier has no prior disciplinary history with the Florida Education Practices Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Ferrier violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and that Mr. Ferrier’s educator’s certificate be revoked for two years followed by a period of three years’ probation under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 9th day of March, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner under a continuing contract. The Respondent, Muriel Johnson Krueger, holds Florida teaching certificate number #0367469 issued by the Florida Department of Education covering grades K through 6. The Respondent is also certified in Florida for administration and supervision, grades K through 12. She also holds a Wisconsin teaching certificate. The Respondent taught in Wisconsin for a number of years; she taught in a one-room school house, grades 1 through 5. She began teaching in Florida in 1974 at Brooksville Primary School in Hernando County, where she taught first grade for two years. She next taught first grade at Moton School Center (Moton) also in Hernando County, for four years. She received her continuing contract in 1977. In 1979, the Respondent was appointed primary specialist at Moton; she held that position until August, 1985. As primary specialist, the Respondent was not assigned to a classroom; she worked primarily with teachers and teachers' aides. She was not responsible for drawing up lesson plans, recording grades, or developing pacing schedules, as those procedures are used in the ordinary classroom. The Respondent received favorable evaluations throughout her career in the Hernando County school system, until January, 1986. However, Respondent has never received an evaluation of her performance which would support her dismissal. In March, 1985, the Respondent was diagnosed as having certain physical and psychological problems, including diabetes and atypical psychosis. The Respondent's medical conditions, including the details regarding her psychological illness, were reported to the school system by the Respondent's doctors, Dr. Renee Haney, a psychiatrist and Dr. Joanne Pegg- McNab., a psychologist. In August, 1985, two days prior to the commencement of the school year, the Respondent was notified by the Petitioner that she would be teaching third grade at Spring Hill Elementary School (Spring Hill) during the 1985-86 school year. Previously, the Respondent had been given to understand, based on representations made to her by school administrators, that she would be teaching second grade in 1985-1986. The Respondent had prepared materials for the teaching of second grade, which she was unable to use in teaching third grade. Louise Ross, principal of Spring Hill, was aware that Respondent had not been a classroom teacher for at least four years prior to Respondent coming to Spring Hill in August, 1985. Ross was aware of Respondent's treatment for psychological illness. Prior to the students' return, the Respondent worked one week at Spring Hill. During that period, Respondent attended general meetings, and although Respondent received a packet of material during this period, it did not contain any specific instruction in regard to preparing lesson plans, grading or pacing. Respondent received specific written instruction regarding the recording of grades and pacing at a later date. Respondent did not receive any specific verbal or written instructions from Ross or any other person respecting the procedures in effect at Spring Hill in regard to grading and pacing until the memorandums of September 24, 1985 and November 19, 1985 from Ross concerning grades and pacing, and the December 16, 1985 letter to Respondent from Ross setting forth Ross' concerns about Respondent's procedures in grading, pacing, and lesson plan preparation that were covered in the meeting between Ross and Respondent on December 16, 1985. On September 24, 1985, approximately one month after school opened on August 22, 1985, Ross issued a memorandum regarding the number of grades to be recorded for each subject, and the procedure for recording the grades. On November 19, 1985 Ross issued a memorandum regarding the Ginn Reading Program (pacing student in reading). Both the memorandum and the chart attached pointed out it was a "guide" and that the primary concern was for the student to master the material. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent received this memorandum prior to returning to work on December 16, 1985. No documents concerning the pacing in other subjects were issued to Respondent. Pacing involves setting a pace for the teacher and the student to cover the required material in a set time and yet allow the student to master the subject matter. The failure to properly pace a class usually results in the student requiring remediation in the subject matter. Although Ross collected and reviewed Respondent's lesson plan books during the beginning of the school year and prior to Respondent going on sick leave in November, 1985, Ross did not make any suggestions or criticisms concerning pacing because when she checked the lesson plan books Ross found them sufficient. Respondent was aware of the requirement of preparing lesson plans in advance, but at Moton, where she had previously taught, the requirement was to prepare three days of lesson plans in advance, not five days as was required at Spring Hill. Spring Hill required lesson plans to be ready on the Friday immediately prior to week of the lesson plans, but Ross had allowed teachers to prepare lesson plans over the week-end for the following week. Respondent was absent from school beginning November 20, 1985 through December 16, 1985 on approved sick leave. Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and leave them for her substitute. Respondent's illness prevented her from preparing lesson plans for the period beginning November 25, 1985 and up until Respondent returned on December 16, 1985. However, the lesson plans for November 20, 21 and 22, 1985 should have been prepared prior to Respondent's illness. On December 16, 1985, the day Respondent returned from sick leave, Ross held a meeting with Respondent to advise her of certain changes in performance expected by Ross. The expected changes were the result of Ross reviewing Respondent's grade book and determining that the grades were not recorded in accordance with the September 24, 1985 memorandum, and reviewing Respondent's lesson plan books and determining that Respondent's class (an average class) was ahead of the top class in the third grade in reading and math. Respondent was advised of how to effect the changes and that compliance was expected by the beginning of the second semester. Although Respondent's third grade class was ahead of other third grade classes during the period of school prior to December 16, 1985, the student's mastery of the subject matter covered during this period was within an acceptable range, and remediation was normal. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until the Respondent took leave on March 12, 1987, the Respondent's pacing of her students was in accordance with school policy. Respondent's grade books may have shed some light on whether Respondent had properly recorded the student's grades but the grade books were not introduced into evidence. Prior to taking sick leave on November 20, 1985, the Respondent had, in addition to those grades recorded in her grade, recorded grades on sheets of paper in the back of her grade book contrary to the instructions given in the September 24, 1985 memorandum from Ross. However, Ross permitted the Respondent to record these grades in her grade book at a later time. Without knowing that it was against school policy, Respondent allowed her aides to record grades in her grade book. Subsequent to returning to work on December 16, 1987, and up until she took leave on March 12, 1986, the Respondent's recording of grades in her grade books was in substantial compliance with school policy. Although Respondent did not totally comply with the December 16, 1985 memorandum from Ross, her compliance with the memorandum satisfied Sonia Terrelonge, the third grade chairperson, who Ross had assigned the duty of working with Respondent to bring about compliance with the memorandum. Ross did not check Respondent's plan book or grade book on a regular basis as she had indicated in her memorandum of December 16, 1985 but delegated that responsibility to Terrelonge. On March 7, 1986, Respondent escorted her students to Terrelonge's portable classroom to see a movie and, since Respondent had detention duty, she picked up the students from other third grade classes on detention and returned to her portable classroom. At lunch time Respondent returned the students on detention to Terrelonge's portable classroom and escorted her students to lunch. After lunch Respondent escorted her students back to Terrelonge's portable classroom for the balance of the movie; again picked up the students on detention, and returned to her classroom. At the time scheduled for the conclusion of the movie, Respondent returned to Terrelonge's portable classroom to escort her students back to her classroom. Upon arrival at Terrelonge's classroom, Respondent discovered that her students had left earlier with either Maria Wolf or Catherine Winemiller or Jacqueline Mitchie, the other teachers having students at the movie. Although one of these three (3) teachers would have been responsible for supervising the return of Respondent's students to her classroom since Respondent was on detention duty, there is insufficient evidence to show which one had that responsibility. Upon return to her classroom Respondent observed some of her students outside the classroom unsupervised. Some of the students were running around and some were standing on a railing attempting to rescue a shoe from the roof. Respondent summoned her students into the classroom. None of the students were injured in any way. After the movie and the shoe incident the Respondent's children were "hyper". To calm them down, Respondent decided to go to the playground rather than to the scheduled special class. Respondent notified the special class teacher of this change but, without knowledge that she was required to notify Ross, failed to notify Ross of this change. This was the only special class the Respondent's student's missed while under her care during the 1985-86 school year. Other teachers took their students out on unscheduled recess when the children would not settle down. The evidence does not reveal any written policy concerning unscheduled recesses. Respondent kept blank discipline slips and omni passes in an unlocked desk drawer, and that students had on occasions filled out these slips without Respondent's knowledge. There was insufficient evidence to show that the children were under Respondent's supervision at the time the slips were taken out of the drawer and filled out. There were a number of disruptive and behavioral problem students in Respondent's class, but the number of disruptive or behavioral problem children in Respondent's class was not shown to be greater than in any other average third grade class. During the 1985-86 school year, Ross made frequent, unscheduled visits to Respondent's classroom and found Respondent's performance, including her classroom management, satisfactory, except on one (1) occasion, March 12, 1986. As a result of the shoe incident and skipping the special class, Ross called Respondent to a meeting on March 7, 1986 with Edward Poore, Assistant Superintendent, and Cathy Hogeland, Union Representative being present along with Ross and Respondent. As a result of this meeting, Ross advised Respondent to take the rest of that day off, which was Friday, and March 10, 1986 which was Monday. Respondent complied and returned to work on Tuesday, March 11, 1986. On March 11, 1986, the day Ross returned to school her students went on a field trip but Respondent was not allowed to accompany them. During the day Respondent worked on grading, grade books and planning. Also, on March 11, 1986, Ross gave Respondent a handwritten memorandum instructing her in class management, specifically addressing the supervision of students, class discipline, the following of lesson plans and attendance of students at special classes. Additionally, the memorandum instructed Respondent that teachers were not to eat lunch in the classroom and listed those areas where Respondent could eat lunch. On March 12, 1986, around noon, Respondent met with Ross, with Joanne Knight, being present as Union Representative. This meeting occurred as a result of Ross visiting Respondent's classroom and finding the students particularly disruptive and disorderly. When Respondent indicated that she could resume teaching her class that afternoon, Ross informed Respondent that she must take a leave of absence and have a complete physical examination and psychological evaluation or Ross would recommend her termination to the school board. Respondent was also informed by letter from Ross dated April 8, 1986 that her return to work would be based on the psychologist's report which should be submitted no later than May 31, 1986. Due to Ross' demands, Respondent requested leave and signed the necessary papers which had been filled out by the school board office. Respondent was put on leave without pay for the balance of the school year. Respondent resumed seeing Dr. Haney in April, 1986 but due to Dr. Haney's, or Respondent's oversight, an evaluation was not submitted until July 30, 1986. However, on July 1, 1986, Ross had recommended Respondent's dismissal to the superintendent based solely on Respondent's failure to provide the evaluation by May 31, 1986 without any further notice to Respondent other than the letter of April 8, 1986. Respondent learned of Ross's recommendation of dismissal sometime around July 16, 1986 when Ross notified her by letter. The letter also informed Respondent that this recommendation would go to the school board on August 5 1986. During Dr. Haney's treatment of Respondent in 1986, she prescribed medication for her mental condition which had no detrimental side effects on the Respondent. Dr. Haney's report of July 30, 1986 made no recommendation as to Respondent's ability to return to the classroom but left to the school system the interpretation of her findings. Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, Respondent's treating psychiatrist, began treating Respondent in October, 1986. Dr. Gonzalez's opinion was that while Respondent does have a mental condition, it is treatable with medication and does not affect Respondent's ability to teach. Dr. Gonzalez prescribes the same medication for Respondent as did Dr. Haney. From his observations, the Respondent takes the medication as prescribed. It was also Dr. Gonzalez's opinion that Respondent understands the need for medication. It was the opinion of Dr. Haney that Respondent better understood the need for medication after her second hospitalization in April 1986 then she had after the first hospitalization in 1985. It was the opinion of both Dr. Haney and Dr. Gonzalez that Respondent's mental condition would not prevent her from being effective in the classroom and that her presence as a teacher would not endanger the welfare of the students. Respondent was a concerned teacher, interested in her student's welfare. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that Respondent had emotional outbursts in the presence of her students. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that, due to Respondent's action, the students in her third grade class were deprived of minimum education experiences. Respondent substantially performed her duties as prescribed by law. There is insufficient competent evidence in the record to show that there was a constant or continuing intentional refusal on the part of Respondent to obey a direct order given by proper authority.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Hernando County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Muriel Krueger. It is further RECOMMENDED Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Hernando County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2001 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 as clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 11-13. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraph 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23 except for the last clause which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 17-19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, except for the one occasion on March 12, 1986 which would not be described as a chaotic condition. That classroom management was discussed with Respondent is adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. That students took discipline slips and filled them out is adopted in Finding of Fact 24, the balance of paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 24-27. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. There was conflicting testimony in this regard but the more credible evidence was contrary to the facts set forth in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, and 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Rejected as not being relevant or material because that was Dr. Haney's provisional diagnosis which was changed when she made her final diagnosis. The first sentence of paragraph 31 is adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. The balance of paragraph 31 is rejected as not being relevant or material in that although Respondent admitted being acquainted with those school board policies there was credible evidence that Respondent was not aware at the beginning of the school year of Ross' or the Superintendent's specific instruction in regard to maintaining attendance records, grade books, etc. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. 20.-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22 as clarified. Rejected as not being a finding of fact but only a restatement of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 25.-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34 and 35 but clarified. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 Susan E. Hicks, Esquire Post Office Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County 919 U.S. Highway 41 North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Harvey R. Steckler, holds Teacher's Certificate No. 520419 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. This Certificate covers the area of substitute teaching. On February 5, 1985, the Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher at Brownsville Junior High School in the Dade County Public School System. On February 5, 1985, while substitute teaching in a physical education class, the Respondent was conversing with a group of minor male students. During this conversation, a minor female student passed the Respondent and the group of students. While looking at the female student, the Respondent began to make sexual remarks about her. She could hear portions of these remarks, such as "Oh, she's so fine; he had a girl on his boat and liked to eat her out; you wouldn't mind getting to her; he would like to eat her out," and other sexual comments. These remarks were also overheard by the boys in the group, as well as by the female student. The female student went to the school office and told the Principal and the Assistant Principal about the incident. They suggested to her that she write out a report on the incident, which she did. The Respondent's remarks caused the female student to be both nervous and frightened, as well as embarrassed. When the Principal of Brownsville Junior High reported this incident to the Dade County school system, the Respondent was informed that his name had been removed from the approved list of substitute teachers, pending further notice. After an investigation and several conferences, the Respondent's name was permanently removed from the list of authorized substitute teachers in the Dade County public school system. On April 24, 1985, the Respondent appeared before a publicly televised meeting of the school board to appeal the removal, but the school board took no action to reinstate him. The nature of the incident described above, together with the awareness of the incident on the part of students, staff, parents and the community, because of its publicity, so impaired the Respondent's effectiveness as a substitute teacher and as an educator, that the school board could not re-employ him in any capacity in the Dade County public schools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking Teacher's Certificate No. 520419 held by the Respondent, Harvey R. Steckler. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 17th day of June 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Harvey R. Steckler 825 82nd Street Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney Moenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services Section 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Mary L. Baxter has been employed by the Polk County School Board for approximately 14 years, first as a classroom teacher, then as assistant principal, and in 1984 she was appointed as principal of John Cox Elementary School in Lakeland. While assigned to John Cox Elementary School, Petitioner was issued an annual contract for eleven months (Exhibit 5). Neriah E. Roberts is the Northwest Area Superintendent of Polk County Schools and was in that position at all times here relevant. As Northwest Area Superintendent, Dr. Roberts was Petitioner's immediate supervisor and supervised seventeen additional principals of the Polk County School System. Functions of the area superintendent include acting as liaison between the communities and the schools in his area responsibility, assisting the principals in obtaining funding for maintenance and other school activities and overseeing the performance of these principals. As Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Dr. Roberts prepared Petitioner's performance evaluation. In his first annual evaluation of Petitioner's performance (Exhibit 4), Dr. Roberts reported that Petitioner met performance standards. However, two of those blocks contained comments regarding performance by Petitioner that needed to be improved. Under "Student Services," Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should reassess her disciplinary procedures. Dr. Roberts had received complaints from parents of children at John Cox Elementary School indicating Petitioner was paddling an excessive number of pupils. When he checked the discipline records with Petitioner, he found some 97 pupils had been paddled during that school year. That discovery lead to Dr. Robert's comments. Under "Management" on the evaluation, Dr. Roberts commented that Petitioner should open lines of communication between her staff and her assistant principal. Dr. Roberts had received comments from teachers at John Cox that Petitioner was short tempered and was not popular with members of her instructional staff. On one occasion while Petitioner was principal at John Cox, Dr. Roberts met with the staff at John Cox at which meeting five or six teachers commented unfavorably on Petitioner's relations with her staff. Such reports formed the basis of these comments by Dr. Roberts above noted. In addition to placing the two comments on the March 25, 1985 evaluation, Dr. Roberts submitted a letter to Petitioner dated March 27, 1985 (Exhibit 6) in which he elaborated on the comments placed on the evaluation. Dr. Roberts held another conference with Petitioner on August 14, 1985, which he memorialized in a letter to Petitioner dated August 23, 1985, (Exhibit 7). In this letter, he referred to his March 27, 1985, letter and stated that letter was intended to substitute for a more formal professional development plan. In the evaluation of Petitioner dated March 3, 1986, Dr. Roberts reports that Petitioner successfully met minimum standards in all sections of the evaluation. However, in Section 1, comments are made that "Improvement has been made in leadership style, but this does not preclude the need for continued improvement." Under Item 11 on this evaluation, the comment appears that "Your flexibility and adjustment to this community and students has been good. Due to the inability to read the dates on some of the evaluations contained in Exhibit 4, it is impossible to tell which evaluation was for the second year and which is for the third year Petitioner was principal at John Knox. From Dr. Roberts' testimony, it appears that the evaluation for the second year is included in Exhibit 6, and the evaluation reports in Exhibit 4 in which the date is not legible was for her third year at John Cox. At the expiration of Petitioner's three years as principal at John Cox, she became eligible for a multi-year contract, and Dr. Roberts recommended her for such a contract. When this recommendation reached the superintendent's office, Donald R. Cox, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, noted that the recommendation was inconsistent with school board policy and contacted Dr. Roberts to remind him of the policy that before administrative personnel can be given a multi-year contract, their performance evaluations must be totally satisfactory in each category on the evaluation report for the three years preceding the awarding of a multi-year contract. Dr. Roberts then contacted Petitioner by phone to tell her she would not receive a multi-year contract. Petitioner was quite upset during this conversation and indicated to Dr. Roberts that she would resign. She was requested to put her resignation in writing. This conversation occurred near the end of the week, and the following work day (either Friday or Monday) Dr. Roberts and Dr. Cox met with the superintendent. During this meeting, the status of Petitioner was brought up, and Dr. Roberts told the superintendent that Petitioner had indicated she would resign. Shortly thereafter on January 12, 1987, the superintendent of schools submitted a letter to Petitioner (Exhibit 5), accepting her verbal resignation as principal at John Cox Elementary School and advising her that she would be reassigned to the first available vacancy as assistant principal. By letter dated June 15, 1987 (Exhibit 10), Petitioner indicated she had not resigned and that the charges against her were based on information she had been given no opportunity to challenge or rebut. The superintendent then authorized Dr. Cox to set up a meeting with Petitioner and Dr. Roberts to try and resolve the differences. At this time, it was clear that no valid resignation had been submitted by Petitioner, and this was no longer an avenue to be pursued by the school board. Dr. Cox was authorized by the superintendent to offer Petitioner continued employment as principal of John Cox Elementary School, a transfer to another school as assistant principal at no reduction in salary or a return to professional status as instructional personnel. A meeting was scheduled and held shortly after June 15, 1987 between Roberts, Cox and Petitioner at which Cox offered the above noted alternatives to Petitioner. Petitioner then stated she did not want to remain at John Cox, but would like a lateral transfer to another school as principal. Cox was not authorized to approve the lateral transfer requested by Petitioner and told her he would relay that request to the superintendent and advise Petitioner. When Dr. Cox presented this proposal to the superintendent, the latter indicated he would refuse to recommend to the school board that Petitioner be employed at any other school to a position higher than assistant principal. Cox relayed this information back to Petitioner, and she was subsequently assigned as assistant principal at North Lakeland Elementary School at the same salary she had received as principal at John Cox. Petitioner subsequently requested the hearing to challenge this action, and these proceedings followed.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner is authorized to operate, control and supervise all public schools within the School District of Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the specific charges in this case, Respondent, Norris L. Barker, was employed by Petitioner as a teacher with the Dade County school system. Pursuant to a one-year contract, the terms of which are not in evidence, Respondent was employed in September, 1987, as a math teacher at Miami Southridge Senior High School (Southridge). During the spring of 1987, prior to his employment with Petitioner, Respondent wrote to several school systems offering to donate Xerox memorywriters to the respective schools through a fund raising project which the various school systems were requested to endorse or promote. It was Respondent's goal to raise $8 million to be used to purchase the equipment. The Dade County Public Schools, through the then Superintendent, declined to endorse the fund raising project. After Respondent became employed with the Petitioner, he continued with his plan to raise money for education. Eventually, the project became known to Mr. Rodgers, the principal at Southridge, who advised Respondent that the school could not sanction the fund raising activities and that Respondent would have to obtain permission from a higher administrative source. Respondent did not receive permission to utilize the school name or the endorsement of the school district. As principal, Mr. Rodgers routinely makes informal observation visits to classrooms. These visits are intended as an informal review of the particular class or teacher. The duration of such visits is generally brief, lasting only a few minutes, and no written report or evaluation is made as a result of such visits. During Respondent's time at Southridge, Mr. Rodgers made several such informal visits to Respondent's class. Mr. Rodgers determined, as a result of the informal visits, that Respondent needed assistance with classroom management. This was indicated due to the number of students who were "off task" in Respondent's class. Mr. Rodgers felt that Respondent needed help in finding ways to keep the students working, not talking. On November 23, 1987, Respondent wrote a letter to Mr. Rodgers which expressed Respondent's concern that discipline problems among the ninth graders would adversely affect their performance on the SSAT. Apparently, Respondent believed the disruptive behavior of a few students was adversely influencing the learning conditions for the rest of the class. On November 24, 1987, William Machado, assistant principal in charge of the math department, performed a formal observation of Respondent. This observation was in accordance with the teacher assessment and development system and recorded Respondent's deficiencies in several specific areas of performance. It also provided a prescription plan for performance improvement which offered constructive comments to assist Respondent in deficient areas. Of the six areas evaluated, Mr. Machado found Respondent had problems and was deficient in four: knowledge of the subject, preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was required to complete the prescription plan activities before January 11, 1988. All four of the prescription plan activities required Respondent to refer to the Prescription Manual which was available to Respondent. Further, with regard to Respondent's lesson plans, he was to seek the assistance of Jean Freedman, the math department head. Respondent talked briefly with Ms. Freedman and she offered him the benefit of her lesson book as an example of the type of plan Mr. Machado wanted Respondent to provide. As a means of further assistance, Respondent was to visit peer teachers' rooms to observe how the suggested activities might be incorporated into the teaching setting. Respondent did not submit the lesson plans in accordance with the prescription for performance improvement. There is no evidence as to whether or not he visited peer teachers' rooms. He did not observe Ms. Freedman's class as recommended. In the period immediately following Respondent's formal evaluation, he was absent from school a number of days the total of which exceeded his authorized sick leave. On December 19, 1987, Respondent climbed a 150 foot Southern Bell relay tower located on private property. It was Respondent's stated intention to remain atop the structure to raise $8 million for education. Respondent left a note stating that if the money were not raised by January 4, he would "meet God." Respondent did not have provisions for an extended stay. He was dressed in short pants, tennis shoes and a short-sleeved shirt. The weather conditions that evening were quite cool. Officer Collins responded to a call regarding Respondent's presence atop the tower. He unsuccessfully attempted to talk Respondent into coming down. When his efforts failed, Officer Collins requested negotiators who then talked with Respondent for several hours in further effort to have him voluntarily come down. These efforts also failed. After some four hours, the SWAT team came in to remove Respondent from the tower. Members of this team scaled the tower from Respondent's blind side and forced Respondent into the bucket of a fire truck extension ladder. Afterwards, Officer Collins took Respondent to the crisis intervention center where he was involuntarily committed for observation. He was released following a two day period of observation. The incident of Respondent's tower climbing was widely published in Miami newspapers and received coverage on local radio and television stations. These accounts of the incident identified Respondent as a Dade County high school teacher and, in some instances, identified Southridge. As a result of the media coverage, Mr. Rodgers received telephone calls from concerned parents and teachers regarding Respondent's conduct. On January 7, 1988, Mr. Rodgers recommended that Respondent be dismissed from employment at Southridge. The recommendation was based upon Respondent's performance in the classroom (TADS observation 11/24), Respondent's lack of professional judgment as shown by his conduct on December 19, 1987, the concerns expressed by parents and students regarding Respondent's emotional and mental fitness to regain control of students assigned to his classes, and the degree of public notoriety given to the incident of December 19. When Respondent attempted to return to Southridge on January 6, 1988, he was referred to the Office of Professional Standards and has not returned to the classroom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Dade County enter a final order confirming the administrative decision to terminate the employment of Respondent for just cause stemming from his misconduct in office. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0599 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted to the extent that it provides Respondent was employed by a one year contract and assigned to Southridge. It is presumed the year intended was the entire 1987-88 school year. Paragraphs 2-6 are accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected to the extent that it concludes Respondent did not try to improve. While the evidence established Respondent did not complete lesson plans as requested, there is no evidence that he did not try to do so. Also, while he did not visit Mrs. Freedman's class, he may have visited other master teachers for assistance. The record does not establish whether or not he could have met the prescriptions had he not been absent or had he been able to return after the holidays. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's paragraphs while not identified as findings of fact will be treated as such and considered in order as presented. The first paragraph is rejected as argument, or conclusions unsupported by the record. The first two sentences of the second paragraph are accepted. The remainder of that paragraph is rejected as speculation, unsupported by the record in this cause. With regard to the numbered paragraphs the following rulings are made: Paragraph 1 is rejected. While it is clear that the evaluation cannot be considered proof of Respondent's inadequate knowledge of the subject matter, there is no evidence as to how the computation was made to reach that conclusion (the TADS criteria) nor is there evidence that Mr. Machado was "over zealous." The deficient area was one of four which Respondent would have had to work on had he chosen to refrain from other conduct which further eroded his effectiveness as a teacher. Paragraph 2 is rejected as unsupported by the record. Paragraph 3 is rejected as argument, unsupported by the record. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as, contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 6 is accepted only to the extent that it suggests the fund raiser was not done in the name of the school or the board. When a private interest is pursued, the teacher must take reasonable steps to assure that the activity is not associated with the employer. To the extent that failing to take reasonable precaution would lead to public notoriety and adverse publicity, Respondent is accountable. Paragraph 7 is rejected as comment, argument or contrary to the evidence admitted in this cause. There is, however, no finding that Respondent wrongfully utilized the school name or misrepresented the board's interest in his project. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as conclusion or argument. No finding has been made to suggest Respondent suffers from a mental illness. Paragraph 11 is rejected as conclusion or argument. Paragraphs 12-17 are rejected as conclusions or argument in some instances unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Norris L. Barker 420 Northeast 18th Avenue, Unit #9 Homestead Florida 33030 Jaime Claudio Bovell 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mrs. Madelyn P. Schere Assistant School Board Attorney School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building, Suite 301 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commission of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building Annex 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated based on the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has been a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1992 as a custodian at Melrose Elementary School, one of the public schools in Miami-Dade County. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Cynthia Gracia was the principal of Melrose Elementary School. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 1012.40, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 1012.39. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. (b) Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the AFSCME collective bargaining unit. AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a CBA, which provides in Article XI for discipline of covered employees. Article XI, Section 4 provides that covered employees who have been employed by Petitioner for more than five years (such as Respondent) may only be discharged for "just cause." Article XI, Section 4 of the CBA pertains to types of separation from employment. Article XI, Section 4(B) pertains to excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position and provides as follows: (B) An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall be grounds for termination. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 provides as follows: Except for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave. Pursuant to Section 1012.67, a school board is authorized to terminate the employment of an employee who is willfully absent from employment without authorized leave, as follows: Any district school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his or her employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee, unless the employee can demonstrate that he or she was wrongfully incarcerated. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not wrongfully incarcerated, and he was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. 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. On September 25, 2002, Respondent was charged with assault and battery (domestic violence) involving his then girlfriend. Those charges were pending at the time of the final hearing. On or about November 14, 2002, Respondent appeared at a court hearing. Because he had missed an earlier court date, Respondent was incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County jail. Shortly after he was arrested, Respondent attempted to contact Ms. Gracia at Melrose Elementary School. Respondent testified he tried to call the school five or six times on the day he was arrested, but the call from jail was long distance and the school would not take a collect call. That same day, Respondent called his new girlfriend (Leanne Perez), told her that he was in jail, and asked her to tell Ms. Gracia that he was in jail. On November 14, 2002, Ms. Perez told Ms. Gracia by telephone that Respondent had been detained. When questioned, Ms. Perez explained that Respondent was in jail, but she did not provide any additional information. Respondent returned to his job site on December 16, 2002. Between November 14 and December 16, Respondent was absent from work without authorized leave. Neither Respondent nor anyone on Respondent's behalf contacted or attempted to contact Ms. Gracia between Ms. Perez's telephone call on November 14 and Respondent's reappearance at the job site on December 16. Prior to his incarceration, Respondent had absences from work without authorized leave. From April 11, 2002, to December 16, 2002, Respondent had 29.5 days of unauthorized absences from the worksite. Respondent's unauthorized absences impeded the provision of the custodial services that are necessary to keep a school clean and safe. During Respondent's unauthorized absences, the other members of the custodial staff had to perform their duties and had to perform extra work to cover for Respondent's absence. On December 5, 2002, Ms. Gracia wrote a memorandum to Respondent styled "Employment Intention." After listing the dates Respondent had been absent between October 10, 2002, and December 5, Ms. Gracia wrote as follows: These absences have caused the effective operation of the worksite to be impeded, and/or efficient services to students to be impeded. I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options: Notify the worksite of your intended date of return; or Effect leave procedures (request for leave [form] attached); or Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (Resignation letter attached.) You are directed to notify the worksite within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator. Ms. Gracia's memorandum was mailed to the address Respondent had given Petitioner as his residence, and a relative of Respondent, who was not named at the final hearing, signed for the mailing. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not receive the memorandum until after he got out of jail. Respondent did not respond to the memorandum. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not intend to abandon his employment. Respondent worked between December 16, 2002, and April 9, 2003, the date Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment without pay and instituted these proceedings to terminate his employment.
Recommendation 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, sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay, and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2003, 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 24th day of October, 2003.
