Findings Of Fact Born September 3, 1956, Stephen Darryl Hand holds police certificate No. 02-18775. Respondent Hand was employed as a police officer by the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department from July 3, 1977, to December 21, 1979. On December 22, 1979, he began working for the Melbourne Police Department, which he left in February of 1980, at the Police Chief's behest. In the fall of 1978, respondent was entrusted with the keys to the evidence locker at the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department. After Officer Martin came into possession of $14,990 in cash, it was stored in the evidence locker. Although seized in suspicious circumstances, the money was labeled as abandoned property, and not as evidence. Two weeks or so before he left Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, respondent stole fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) from the cash in the evidence locker. This was the first time that he had been custodian of a large amount of cash. During respondent's final week with the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, he and his replacement were directed to count the money again. Respondent then reported a shortage of $1,500 to Lt. Ferguson, without revealing that he had taken the money himself. He had used it for various personal purposes, including $250 he paid for the benefit of his sister. Lt. Ferguson reported the missing money to Chief Fernez who encouraged all personnel to take polygraph tests. Many resented this suggestion and morale problems arose. The theft made the local papers. When respondent, who was by that time employed by the Melbourne Police Deportment, was originally scheduled for a polygraph examination, he feigned illness and declined to take it. After Chief Fernez contacted Chief Miller of the Melbourne Police Department, however, he submitted to a polygraph examination, during which he denied knowing what had happened to the $1,500 he had recently spent. Some time later, respondent told Sergeant Keller of the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department that he had found the missing money among some papers at home. Respondent made full restitution before criminal charges were filed. On March 6, 1980, he pleaded guilty to grand theft, second degree and, on May 20, 1980, was placed on two years' probation, adjudication of guilt being withheld. Sixteen law enforcement officers testified on behalf of respondent to the effect that respondent was a good police officer who should be given a second chance even though he was guilty of an offense none of them could condone. Similarly, petitioner's witnesses commended respondent's conduct as a police officer, apart from the theft of a large sum of cash from the evidence locker, and the lying afterwards. To the extent that proposed findings of fact in petitioner's proposed recommended order have not been adopted in substance, they have been rejected as not established by the preponderance of the evidence or deemed irrelevant, after careful consideration.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke the certificate it issued to respondent, No. 02- 18775. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Corrigan, Esquire The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen Darryl Hand 105 Elm Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937
The Issue The issues in this instance are promoted in keeping with an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent, charging violations of Sections 943.13 and 943.145, Florida Statutes. These allegations relate to the claim that Respondent was involved in a liaison with a prostitute in which he exchanged Valium for sex. The encounter between the Respondent and the prostitute is alleged to have occurred while the Respondent was on duty. This Valium was allegedly obtained from an automobile which was examined as part of the Respondent's duties as a law enforcement officer. It is further alleged that the Valium should have been turned in as part of his responsibilities as a law enforcement officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a holder of a certificate as law enforcement officer, Certificate No. 98-10527. That certificate is issued by the State of Florida, Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and Respondent has held that certificate at all relevant times in this proceeding. Respondent has been employed as a police officer by the Daytona Beach, Florida, Police Department in the relevant time period and it was during that tenure that Respondent is accused of having committed the offense as set forth in the administrative complaint. Debbie Ofiara is the only witness to the Respondent's alleged indiscretion while on duty. Ms. Ofiara is an admitted prostitute, who has drug problems so severe that she required specific program treatment to address them. In particular, that drug difficulty relates to the drug Dilaudid. In addition, Ofiara has served six months in jail for grand theft, a felony conviction. At the time of the alleged incident with the Respondent she was under the influence of drugs and was under the influence of drugs when she reported that incident to a police investigator in the Daytona Beach Police Department. When testimony was given at the hearing, Ofiara was attending a drug program while awaiting a sentence for a drug offense related to cocaine. She had pled guilty to that drug charge, a felony. Ofiara has been arrested for prostitution, arrests made by the Daytona Beach Police Department on three different occasions. She had been arrested for hitchhiking by Officer Cadenhead prior to the incident which underlies the administrative charges and indicates that she "took offense" at the arrest. Moreover, she acknowledges some past concern about her treatment in encounters with Officer Gary Gallion of the Daytona Beach Police Department in his official capacity. Ms. Ofiara claims that sometime in November 1982, in the evening hours, the Respondent, while on duty as a police officer, in uniform and driving a marked patrol car, approached Ofiara and made arrangements to meet her. She further states that this rendezvous occurred in Daytona Beach, Florida, and that in exchange for Valium tablets which the Respondent had obtained from an examination of a car he had been involved with in his police duties, which tablets were not turned in, Ofiara performed oral sex for Respondent's benefit. Some time later, Ofiara related the facts of the encounter with Officer Cadenhead to an internal affairs investigator with the Daytona Beach Police Department, Lieutenant Thomas G. Galloway. She also gave Galloway a bottle which she claimed was the bottle in which the Valium was found. The vial or container was not examined for any residue of the substance Valium or examined for fingerprints of the Respondent. Following Galloway's investigation of the allegations, the Daytona Beach Police Department determined to terminate the Respondent from his employment. That termination was effective February 11, 1983. Respondent was subsequently reinstated after service of a four-week suspension without pay by order of the City of Daytona Beach Civil Service Board, effective March 9, 1983. Having considered the testimony of Ms. Ofiara and the testimony of the Respondent in which he denies the incident with her, and there being no corroboration, Ms. Ofiara's testimony is rejected for reasons of credibility. As a prostitute, drug user, felon and person with a certain quality of animosity toward the Respondent and in consideration of the demeanor of the accusing witness and Respondent, her testimony is rejected.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Thomas C. Robbins, committed the acts alleged in an Administrative Complaint dated December 6, 2005, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed upon him.
Findings Of Fact The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"), is created within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement by Section 943.11, Florida Statutes. The Commission is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the certification and discipline of certified law enforcement officers, instructors, and criminal justice training schools in Florida. Respondent, Thomas C. Robbins, has been certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida since April 12, 1991, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 78355. B. April 13, 2005. Kimberly Anspach is a cousin of Mr. Robbins' wife, Tamara E. Robbins. Ms. Anspach, who resides in Boyton Beach, Florida, at the times relevant to this matter was employed as a dancer at Cheetah's Lounge. On April 13, 2005, Ms. Anspach and another dancer employed at Cheetah's Lounge identified only as Michelle (identified as "Michael" in the Transcript of the final hearing), agreed to dance privately for a man by the name of Moises Ventura and three other men. Ms. Anspach and the other dancer were told by Mr. Ventura that they would both be paid $1,000.00 for their services. Ms. Anspach and Michelle accompanied Mr. Ventura and the other men to a private residence where the women danced. The women consumed alcohol and the men, in addition to using alcohol, used drugs. Ms. Anspach and Michelle also engaged in mutual sexual relations with the men. The Early Morning of April 14, 2005. Ms. Anspach and Michelle left the residence at around 4:30 a.m., on April 14, 2005. Mr. Ventura and the other men refused to pay the $2,000.00 owed to the women. Upset at not being paid for her services, Ms. Anspach telephoned her cousin, Tamara Robbins. Ms. Anspach explained to Mrs. Robbins about the events of the previous night and told her that Mr. Ventura had refused to pay for her services. Ms. Anspach was told by Mrs. Robbins that she would help get her the money she was owed by Mr. Ventura. Mrs. Robbins told Ms. Anspach to get some rest and that she would call her back later that day. The Attempted Extortion of Mr. Ventura. After speaking with Ms. Anspach, Mrs. Robbins telephoned Mr. Ventura. Later that day, Mrs. Robbins called Ms. Anspach and told her that she had telephoned Mr. Ventura and told him that if he did not pay Ms. Anspach and Michelle the money they were owed that Ms. Anspach would claim that he had raped her. On the same day that Ms. Anspach spoke with Mrs. Robbins about the incident, Mr. Ventura went to the Royal Palm Beach Police Department. He spoke with Officer Cherly Griffin, telling her that he had received a telephone call from an individual that told him Ms. Anspach would claim he raped her if he did not pay her $2,000.00. A "controlled phone call" was made from the Police Department to a number provided to Mr. Ventura by the women who had threatened him. A woman answered and identified herself as "Donna." The controlled phone call took place on April 14, 2005. Detectives Kazer and Durso listened to the controlled phone call. Officer Griffin also listened to the telephone conversation. That call was recorded and admitted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The controlled phone call made on April 14, 2005, was made to a cellular phone utilized by Mrs. Robbins. The woman who identified herself as "Donna" was Mrs. Robbins. This finding is based upon the testimony of Ms. Anspach that she recognized Mrs. Robbins’ voice on the tape and the phone records of Mrs. Robbins' cell phone. During the controlled phone call, Mr. Ventura was directed by Mrs. Robbins to bring the money owed to Ms. Anspach to Wellington Mall (hereinafter referred to as the "Mall"), and meet Ms. Anspach at the Chic-Fil-A. Wellington Mall. Later during the afternoon of April 14, 2005, Mrs. Robbins telephoned Ms. Anspach and told her that she was to go to the Chic-Fil-A at the Mall, where she would meet Mr. Ventura and collect the money owed her. Mrs. Robbins also told her that Mr. Robbins would come to her apartment, pick her up, and take her to Mall. Mr. Robbins picked up Ms. Anspach at her apartment and drove her to the Mall. During the ride to the Mall, Mr. Robbins told Ms. Anspach that what was going on could be considered blackmail and "that if anything were to happen when we were to pick up the money that he had no involvement." When they arrived at the Mall, Mr. Robbins dropped Ms. Anspach off while he parked his vehicle. He told Ms. Anspach that he would be waiting for her around the corner from the CHIC-FIL-A and would be watching her to see if anything were to happen. He reassured her that, if anything were to go wrong, he would be right around the corner. Approximately 30 minutes after arriving at the Mall, Mr. Robbins received a telephone call from Mrs. Robbins, who told him that the meeting location had been changed from the Mall to a Hess Gas Station located in Wellington. The Hess Gas Station. Upon arriving at the Hess Gas Station, which was close to the Mall, Mr. Robbins parked his vehicle. Mr. Ventura then walked up to the parked vehicle and said, "oh, this is your muscle" evidently referring to Mr. Robbins. While Ms. Anspach said "yes," Mr. Robbins said nothing. Immediately after Ms. Anspach responded to Mr. Ventura's statement, Royal Palm Beach Police officers took Ms. Anspach and Mr. Robbins out of the vehicle at gun point. Both were placed on the ground and handcuffed. Ms. Anspach was arrested and taken to the Royal Palm Beach Police station. Mr. Robbins was released at the Hess Gas Station. Initially, Ms. Anspach told the police that she had been raped by Mr. Ventura. When the recording of the controlled phone call was played for her, she admitted that she had been told by Mrs. Robbins that Mr. Ventura had been told to pay her the money she was owed or that she would report that he had raped her. Mr. Robbins' Explanation. Mr. Robbins testified unconvincingly at the final hearing that the only thing he knew about the events of April 13 and 14, 2005, was that his wife had requested that he give Ms. Anspach, who had no automobile at the time, a ride to the Mall to collect money owed to her from a friend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Commission finding that Thomas C. Robbins violated Section 943.1395(7); dismissing the allegation that he violated Section 943.1395(6); and suspending his certification for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Doddo, Esquire 600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 600 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On November 9, 1972, the State of Florida, acting through Petitioner, certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Certificate number 6350 was duly issued to Respondent by Petitioner. On September 10, 1984, the following occurred in Delray Beach, Florida: At approximately 12:30 a.m., Respondent was found asleep in his automobile by two Delray Beach police officers, Sergeant Stephen Barborini and Detective Thomas Tustin. Respondent was alone in the automobile. Respondent's automobile was parked in a public parking lot in the 1100 block of North Federal Highway in Delray Beach with its engine running and its headlights on. Respondent was awakened by the police officers and questioned while in the parked automobile after the engine had been turned off by Officer Barborini. Respondent was very intoxicated. Upon being questioned, Respondent produced a police badge case, without a police badge, and identified himself as a Metro-Dade Police Officer. The Delray Beach police officers advised Respondent that he was in no condition to drive and offered to either give him a ride home or to arrange other transportation for him. Respondent then got out of the car. As a result of his intoxication, Respondent was unable to maintain his balance, his eyes were bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. At times Respondent was incoherent. Respondent began to behave in an erratic manner. He shouted and yelled obscenities at the officers, he cried, and he pleaded on his knees for the officers to leave him alone. Respondent became angry with Detective Tustin while Detective Tustin was trying to calm him down. Respondent placed his hands on the person of Detective Tustin and pushed him back a couple of steps. Respondent was arrested by Officer Barborini for disorderly intoxication and taken into custody. Upon arrival at the police station, Respondent again began to shout obscenities and pushed another officer, Officer Giovani. Respondent met with the officers about two months later and apologized for his actions. Officer Barborini asked the State Attorney's Office not to prosecute because Respondent was a police officer and because Officer Barborini had been told that Respondent was seeking help for his drinking problem. The State Attorney's Office granted Officer Barborini's request. Respondent was not charged with battery because Officer Barborini and Detective Tustin thought Respondent was too intoxicated to intentionally batter Detective Tustin. On August 28, 1985, Respondent was found guilty by the Dade County Court of the charge of battery on the person of Jose Lleo. The battery occurred on February 22, 1985, while Respondent was on duty. Although Respondent was not intoxicated at the time, he had consumed alcohol before reporting to work. Following his conviction, the Court withheld adjudication of guilt and also withheld sentence. On April 3, 1986, the following occurred in Deerfield Beach, Florida: At approximately 3:35 a.m., Respondent was found asleep in his automobile by Officer John Szpindor and Officer Dale Davis of the Deerfield Beach Police Department. Respondent was alone in the automobile. Respondent's automobile was parked on the grassy shoulder of the road in the 2700 block of Southwest 10th Street with its engine running and its headlights on. The officers were able to awaken Respondent after several minutes of shaking him and talking to him. Respondent, upon being awakened, was belligerent and uncooperative. He used profanity towards the officers, calling them names and telling the officers they had no right to bother him. Respondent got out of the automobile after being instructed to do so. Respondent was very intoxicated. As a result of his intoxication, Respondent was groggy and unable to maintain his balance. His eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred. Respondent's pants were wet in the crotch area. The officers identified Respondent by examining a wallet, with Respondent's permission, which was lying on the seat of the car. The wallet contained an empty badge case. From examining the wallet, the officers obtained sufficient information to enable the dispatcher to contact Shirley Daniels, who was married to Respondent at that time. Mrs. Daniels was asked to come to the scene. While waiting for Mrs. Daniels to arrive on the scene, Respondent became more belligerent. His shouting grew louder and more confrontational. Despite the officers' attempts to calm him down, Respondent took off his jacket, threw it on the ground, and assumed a defensive stance as if he wanted to fight the officers. The shouting disturbed the residents of a nearby residential area. Respondent confronted Officer Davis, who had Respondent's wallet, told Officer Davis that he had no business with the wallet, and he struck Officer Davis in the chest and chin areas. The blow to the chin was a glancing blow as opposed to being a hard blow. Officer Davis was not injured. Officer Davis and Officer Szpindor immediately thereafter physically overpowered Respondent, placed him under arrest for disorderly intoxication and battery, and took him into custody. When Shirley Daniels arrived on the scene, she told the officers that she would be unable to manage Respondent at home in his intoxicated condition. Respondent was then taken to jail by the officers. There was no evidence as to the disposition of the charges of disorderly intoxication and battery. Respondent is an alcoholic and was an alcoholic at the times of the incidents described above. Prior to those incidents, Respondent had sought treatment and thought that he had successfully completed the program. Between the incident in Delray Beach and the incident in Deerfield Beach, Respondent attended Alcoholics Anonymous. Respondent continued to drink, to the extent that he suffered blackouts, because he did not immerse himself in the Alcoholics Anonymous program. During the periods Respondent maintained control of his drinking, he exhibited the qualities required of a enforcement officer. Whenever the alcoholism gained control, as was the case in the 1984 incident in Delray Beach and the 1986 incident in Deerfield Beach, Respondent lost control of himself and of his actions. As of the date of the final hearing, Respondent had abstained from alcohol for two and one-half years. For the past two and one-half years Respondent has been seriously, and successfully, involved in Alcoholics Anonymous. Respondent is a recovering alcoholic who has good moral character as long as he has control of his alcoholism. Respondent currently operates his own business as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent failed to maintained good moral character, which places Respondent's certification on a probationary status for a period of two years and which contains as a condition of probation that Respondent abstain from the use of alcohol. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0714 The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-3. Addressed in paragraph 2(a). Addressed in paragraph 2(c). Addressed in paragraph 2(d). Addressed in paragraph 2(e). Addressed in paragraph 2(g). Addressed in paragraph 2(h). 9-10. Addressed in paragraph 2(i). Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 12. 13-14. Addressed in paragraph 6(a). 15-16. Addressed in paragraph 6(b). Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Addressed in paragraph 6(c). Addressed in paragraph 6(e). 20-22. Addressed in paragraph 6(f). Addressed in paragraph 6(g). Addressed in paragraph 6(h). The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-5. Addressed in paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (c). Addressed in paragraphs 2(f) and (g). Addressed in paragraphs 2(h) and (i). Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. Addressed in paragraph 4. 10-12. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. 13. Addressed in paragraph 3. 14-16. Addressed in paragraph 6(a). Addressed in paragraph 6(b). Addressed in paragraph 6(e). Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. Addressed in paragraphs 6(g) and (h). 21-24. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. 25. Addressed in paragraph 5. 26-27. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the result reached and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 9 and 10. 28-31. Rejected as beings recitation of testimony as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 7, 9, and 10. 32-36. Rejected as being recitation of testimony as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10. 37-38. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 40-41. Rejected as being recitation of testimony , as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10. 42-45. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the results reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 8. 46-49. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the results reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 8. 50. Addressed in paragraphs 1 and paragraph 11. 51-54. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 5. Rejected as being irrelevant. The purported statement of Mr. Kastrenatis is rejected as being hearsay. Addressed in paragraph 9. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Casey, Esquire 10680 N.W. 25th Street Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33172 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is entitled to relocate its employee, Perry Kirkland, from an assignment in Jacksonville, Florida, to an assignment in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Perry Kirkland, the Respondent, is employed as a beverage sergeant with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He has been employed with that division for sixteen years. Within that employment period, he has worked for one year in Orlando, two years in Miami, a period of time in Daytona Beach and then was assigned to Jacksonville, Florida, where he has remained as an employee with the exception of a period of time of 28 days beginning on September 19, 1977, when he was working for the same division in West Palm Beach, Florida. His service in the present type of classification began in 1968 when he was made an enforcement supervisor. His category was later changed to beverage sergeant in 1975. He is a permanent status employee. The underlying nature of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent concerns the Petitioner's effort to have the Respondent moved from Jacksonville, Florida, to West Palm Beach, Florida, on a permanent basis, as a condition of the Respondent's employment. The propriety or impropriety of such a requirement may be best understood by discussing the background facts which led to his proposed relocation. In the late fall or early winter of 1976, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Charles A. Nuzum, in conjunction with his subordinates, determined that it was necessary to transfer certain personnel from the Marianna office to the Panama City office. The purpose of such transfer was to promote more comprehensive enforcement in the Panama City area which was thought to be necessary, and had as its correlative purpose the removal of employees from the Marianna office, where the workload was not as substantial as that in Panama City. In essence, it has been decided that a full-fledged office would he opened in Panama City, in contrast to a sort of impromptu office that was in existence at the time. To make this change in personnel, it was necessary for the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to get the approval of the Department of Administration, Division of Budget. Mr. Nuzum and his chief of law enforcement met with representatives of the Department of Administration, Division of Budget, to include Elton Revell, a senior budget analyst. The purpose of this meeting was to present the request for changes in the Marianna and Panama City Offices. Revell advised the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that the Division of Budget could not go along with the "piecemeal" resolution of the problem of a disparity in the efforts of fulfilling the mission of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. It was Revell's position that it would be necessary to consider the entire state in evaluating such realignment, before any approval could be granted. As an example of his position, Revell specifically mentioned that he thought that Live Oak and Jacksonville were offices that were overstaffed. At the insistence of the Division of Budget, and in keeping with his own analysis of the needs of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Mr. Nuzum undertook the task of analyzing the assignment status of the manpower of the division statewide, in an effort to achieve the mandate of his division's function more uniformly. The director had the benefit of certain weekly and monthly reports filed by the field agents in the categories of the division's overall mission. He also had the benefit of an overview of the conditions in the district offices, having made personal visits to the offices around the state. However, it was determined that a more specific study was necessary to get a true picture of the conditions in the district and sub-district offices for purposes of presenting the proposed realignment of personnel to the Department of Administration, Division of Budget. The principal task of doing the study was assigned to John Berry, an auditor with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Berry performed a workload study for a period in 1976, which was designed to determine the time that the agents within the district offices were spending in the primary agency functions, which are licensing and enforcement. The result of this study may he found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Berry in compiling his study, examined the various functions being performed in the Jacksonville District Office and the West Palm Peach District Office, which are Districts III and X respectively. It was determined, per his workload study, that although Jacksonville and West Palm Beach had a comparable number of licenses in their district, the number of manhours being spent in the performance of the licensing and enforcement functions of the division were significantly disproportionate. This is borne out by an examination of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which shows 2,067 licenses in Jacksonville and 2,015 licenses in West Palm Beach, for the various counties in the districts. Although this number is relatively close, manhours in the licensing function in Jacksonville was some 9,907 hours and the licensing manhours in West Palm Beach were 6,683. Likewise, the enforcement manhours in Jacksonville were 10,250, an even greater gap existed for enforcement in West Palm Beach in comparison to Jacksonville, in that the total manhours spent for that function in West Palm Beach was 3,355. These statistics were derived from an examination of the weekly and monthly reports from the personnel within the Jacksonville and Palm Beach offices. The statistics were also borne out by the testimony of the lieutenant in charge of the West Palm Beach office, who indicated that due to a shortage of manpower, the enforcement function in the West Palm Beach area was woefully inadequate. This discussion of the Jacksonville and West Palm Beach district offices leads to further consideration of the efforts made by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to have their personnel realigned. After Director Nuzum had received the workload study, he had a further discussion of the authenticity of that study, with members of the staff, to include the district supervisors. His communication with the district supervisors had been by sending them a copy of the workload study to solicit their remarks. This study was forwarded to the district supervisors some time in March, 1977. After this discussion, the study was accepted. On June 7, 1977, the director forwarded the reorganization proposal to Mr. J. Jackson Walter, the Executive Director of the Department of Business Regulation, of which the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is a part. This reorganization proposal was forwarded in conjunction with a request made by Mr. Walter. Again, the contents of this proposal are found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which includes the workload study and a specific indication of how many persons would be reassigned to the various offices. It also includes a copy of the then present manning chart and a copy of the proposed manning chart after the changes. At that point in time, the exact persons who would be moved had not been determined. Moreover, the criteria for moving individuals from one location to another was still under discussion. Finally, it was determined that the basis for movement would be on the grounds of seniority, should there be two possible candidates for relocation and a decision become necessary for selecting one of those two persons. Sergeant Kirkland was in that category, because within the Jacksonville district there were two beverage sergeants and the other beverage sergeant was a more senior member of the division. Therefore, Kirkland was chosen to be relocated from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach. The purpose of this relocation was primarily to promote a more consistent enforcement pattern in terms of hours spent in that function statewide and between Jacksonville and West Palm Beach. A related reason was to allow some assistance to the lieutenant in charge of the West Palm Beach office, in terms of supervision of the field beverage officers of basic rank. A letter was forwarded to the district supervisors and district auditors from Mr. Nuzum, indicating that the realignment of personnel assignments would be on the basis of seniority. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 submitted into evidence is a copy of that notification. After determining that seniority would be the criterion for the relocation of personnel involved, the Division Director submitted his proposals through the Department of Business Regulation for transmittal to the Department of Administration for their approval. The Department of Administration approved the reorganization and J. Revell of the Department of Administration informed Floyd L. Dorn of the Department of Business Regulation's personnel office, that this approval had been granted. This approval came about in August, 1977. After receiving the notification of approval, Director Nuzum then began to advise the personnel who were affected by the reorganization in terms of any relocation. As stated before, Sergeant Kirkland was a person involved in the relocation question. Assistant Chief of Enforcement, Ken Ball, on the basis of the seniority standard, determined that Sergeant Kirkland should be transferred from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach. This was approved by Director Nuzum and this particular change was indicated on the reorganization position chart, which was Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 submitted into evidence. His position number is 00092. The Respondent had filled the 00092 position while working in Jacksonville. His primary function was as supervisor of the enforcement section of the district, with the exception of the period of time in which he was acting in the dual capacity of enforcement supervisor and acting district supervisor. His duties during that latter period are described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. This duty description was made by Sergeant Kirkland. When the present district supervisor, Captain Oganowski, took over the permanent job of district supervisor in Jacksonville, Sergeant Kirkland went back to filling the duties of enforcement supervisor. This function entailed the supervision of the enforcement division, as opposed to enforcement and licensing or licensing. Sergeant Kirkland continued to hold this position except for a short period of time in 1975 when he changed positions with the licensing supervisor. This is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 shows the reassignment of Kirkland back to the job 00092, (enforcement supervisor) in Jacksonville. During his tenure with the division, Sergeant Kirkland has maintained a high standard of performance in his various assignments. The current description of duties and responsibilities which the Respondent is expected to assume in the West Palm Beach office may be found as a part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. This function includes the supervision of both enforcement and licensing personnel. When it was determined that Sergeant Kirkland would be sent to West Palm Beach, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco telephonically communicated the notice of this transfer. It was followed by a letter indicating the transfer, a copy of which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The date of the written notification is August 25, 1977. The official report of personnel action setting the effective date of the relocation was dated September 15, 1977, and made the effective date September 19, 1977. A copy of this report of personnel action is Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. The type of action indicated on this form is original appointment, with the additional statement entered as "Continued." In fact, the relocation of Sergeant Kirkland is a reassignment within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.08, F.A.C. It is a reassignment because the appointment involved a move from one position in one class to a different position in the same class. The position move, is a move from the 00092 position in Jacksonville, which involves the supervision of enforcement personnel in Jacksonville, to the 00092 position in West Palm Beach, which involves the supervision of both enforcement and licensing personnel. Under the terms of Rule 22A-7.08, F.A.C., Kirkland may not appeal that reassignment. However, since it involves a geographic transfer of more than fifty miles the Respondent is entitled to appeal this decision to the Career Service Commission, in keeping with the authority of Rule 22A-7.09, F.A.C. The Respondent has challenged this relocation by his Career Service Appeal. That appeal has two principal contentions. The first contention concerns the assertion that the transfer does not fall within any of the types of enumerated appointments found in Rule 22A-7, F.A.C. As already shown, this position has been rejected, because the appointment has been determined to be a reassignment appointment. The second contention of the appeal is that any transfer from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach would cause irreparable financial harm and hardship on the Respondent and his wife. In connection with this assertion, Sergeant Kirkland produced evidence that the housing in the West Palm Beach area is more expensive than that in Jacksonville, and that, not withstanding the amount of equity which he might realize from the sale of his Jacksonville property, he still would incur approximately $15,000 additional cost for housing. This housing would not be comparable to his Jacksonville housing, due to the difference in the available amount of property and size of the home itself being smaller in West Palm Beach. The house that he is purchasing in Jacksonville is a four-bedroom, two-bath, two-carport home. The house being contemplated for purchase in West Palm Beach is a three-bedroom, two-bath home. Furthermore, the cost of the mortgage in Jacksonville is $165 and this cost would be exceeded in West Palm Beach even if the equity realized in the sale of Jacksonville home were put toward the down payment. It was also established that the restaurant cost in the West Palm Beach area is greater than that cost in Jacksonville. Sergeant Kirkland's wife testified that she is a hospital operating room nurse who has established a certain amount of seniority in her present employment. She is also only one year away from being able to retire with retirement benefits. If she is required to move, she would lose those benefits and also have to start at the bottom of the seniority list in any new employment in a hospital operating room in West Palm Beach. Finally, the Respondent demonstrated that to move from the Jacksonville community to West Palm Beach would cause him to lose church membership and other community activities in which he is involved. In spite of the degree of hardship which has been demonstrated by the Respondent in his presentation, a review of all the facts and circumstances would justify the Petitioner's action in its reassignment transfer of the Respondent. The action was not a punishment, it was a circumstance where the needs of the Petitioner in this instance, are more compelling than the hardship which will be caused Sergeant Kirkland and his family.
Recommendation It is recommended that the proposed reassignment appointment transfer of the Respondent from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach in the position 00092 he approved and that the appeal by the Respondent challenging this action by the Petitioner be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 30 day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Glickstein, Jr., Esquire 1205 Universal Marion Building Post Office Box 1086 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Francis Bailey, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32201 Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate number 380391, Post Graduate, Rank II, valid through June 30, 1986, covering the areas of math and junior college. Respondent was employed in the public schools of Palm Beach County as a math teacher at Lake Shore Middle School for the 1979-1980 school year. During the first few weeks of school, Respondent summoned her students into the classroom by shouting an obscenity at them and staged a funeral ceremony for a dead rat in her math class. Students reported these incidents to the principal and to the assistant principal for administration at Lake Shore Middle School. Respondent told another teacher in her carpool that she had found herself in the emergency room of a hospital and did not know how she had gotten there or why she was there. She further admitted being under the care of a psychiatrist. On October 12, 1979, Respondent was seen outside chasing students in an attempt to get them into her classroom, including students that did not belong there. Later, Assistant Principal Davis took Respondent out of her classroom and sent her to the teachers' lounge since she was unable to maintain control over her students in the classroom. Respondent later became subject to alternating outbursts of laughing and crying, without apparent reason. Respondent was driven home by the members of her carpool. Respondent did not return to Lake Shore Middle School. She was absent without leave from October 13, 1979, until her written resignation was accepted by the Palm Beach County School Board on December 3, 1979. On June 18, 1979, Respondent was arrested for possession of marijuana. She elected to participate in the Palm Beach County Pre-Trial Intervention Program. On November 8, 1979, Respondent was again arrested for possession of marijuana. Respondent was not prosecuted pursuant to the first arrest because of her participation and completion of the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. The record in this cause contains no evidence as to the disposition of Respondent's second arrest. The Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate dated July 29, 1980, was mailed by certified mail to Respondent at her last-known address. This and all subsequent mailings to her at her last-known address were returned marked "Unclaimed." Notice of Action was published in The Post, a Palm Beach County newspaper. Respondent's present whereabouts is unknown to each of the Petitioner's witnesses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered revoking the teaching certificate of Henrietta Forbes, certificate number 380391. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 16th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Woods, Johnston, Carlson & Sanford 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Henrietta Forbes 1812 "B" Road Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
The Issue Whether petitioner's application for a Class "G" license, statewide gun permit, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that petitioner's application for a Class G" statewide gun permit was properly filed with the Department of State, Division of Licensing. The application was not entered into evidence; however, the parties stipulated that the only bases for the denial of the license were those stated in the letter of February 16, 1987. On April 7, 1969, petitioner was adjudicated guilty of the offenses of breaking and entering an automobile and petty larceny. Petitioner was placed on probation for a period of five years. On April 16, 1987, petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of battery and was placed on probation for a period of six months. Respondent testified that between 1969 and 1974, while he was on probation, he tried to get his civil rights restored but that he has never been able to determine the status of his civil rights. Petitioner presented no evidence establishing that his civil rights had been restored. No evidence was presented at this hearing regarding the factual circumstances surrounding petitioner's arrest and conviction for breaking and entering an automobile. In his proposed findings of fact, petitioner describes facts from a document he describes as "listed as Item 4, Case Number 85-67 in a hearing held in 1985 on file with the Division of Administrative Hearings." However, no evidence regarding the breaking and entering conviction was submitted at this hearing, and a document submitted during the course of some prior hearing cannot be used to establish factual findings in this proceeding. Petitioner is the owner of Sun Coast Securities, Inc. His company provides security for major events needing crowd control, and a primary employer is the Florida State Fairgrounds. Petitioner has a Class "D" license and an agency license. On the night of October 31, 1986, petitioner was hired by the owner of Yesterday's Lounge to provide security at a Halloween party. Samuel Valez was one of the customers at the Halloween party. The Halloween party was supposed to start at about 9:00 p.m. However, Mr. Valez and a few of his friends got to the bar about 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. Mr. Valez had several drinks during the course of the evening. At some time after 10:00 p.m., Mr. Valez got into a dispute with a bartender. Petitioner thought he saw Mr. Valez take a swing at the bartender. However, Ms. Spalding, who was sitting at the bar, did not see any incident with the bartender. Ms. Ryan observed the dispute with the bartender and stated that Mr. Valez did not hit anyone but was having a disagreement over the service of the drinks. In any event, Mr. Valez was asked to leave the premises by the owner. Mr. Valez was intoxicated. Petitioner and the owner escorted Mr. Valez outside. After they got outside, petitioner and Mr. Valez exchanged a few words. Petitioner pushed Mr. Valez and then hit him in the face. Ms. Imschweiler, Ms. Spalding, and Ms. Ryan all observed the incident. None of the three saw Valez attempt to hit anyone, either petitioner or the owner of the lounge. Ms. Ryan testified that petitioner hit Valez more than once. After Mr. Valez had fallen, petitioner grabbed Valez by his ankle and dragged him across the parking lot ground. Mr. Valez kept stating he didn't want to fight, but every time he tried to get up petitioner pushed him to the ground again. Mr. Valez was bleeding. Ms. Ryan described Valez as having been beaten to a pulp. Petitioner contended that he was merely protecting the owner, that Mr. Valez had taken a swing at the owner, and that petitioner grabbed Valez' arm to prevent the owner from being hit. He also testified that Mr. Valez tried to hit him, and he hit Mr. Valez in self-defense. However, none of the witnesses saw Mr. Valez swing at anyone. The witnesses characterized petitioner's attack on Mr. Valez as unprovoked. Petitioner is 5'10" and weighs 300 pounds. Petitioner does power lifting and holds state and national records. He can squat lift 830 pounds. Mr. Valez is approximately 5'7" tall and weighs about 140 pounds. As a result of the altercation with Mr. Valez, petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated battery. Petitioner ultimately pleaded nolo contendere to simple battery. The evidence presented at the hearing established that petitioner's attack on Mr. Valez was not in self-defense or in the defense of his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioner's application for a Class "G" license. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent’s employment with Petitioner as a high school principal should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in 2011, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as the principal of Spanish River High School (“SRHS”). As the principal of SRHS, Respondent was required to “perform such duties as may be assigned by the district school superintendent pursuant to the rules of the school board, [including] rules relating to administrative responsibility, instructional leadership in implementing the Sunshine State Standards and the overall educational program of the school to which the principal is assigned.” § 1012.28(5), Fla. Stat.; Palm Beach Sch. Bd. Policy 1.014. The educational program which principals are charged with implementing is defined by Florida law. Section 1003.42(1), Florida Statutes, requires school boards to provide “all courses required for middle school promotion, high school graduation, and appropriate instruction designed to meet State Board of Education adopted standards [in the subject areas of reading and other language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign languages, health and physical education, and the arts].” Additionally, the State of Florida requires “members of the instructional staff of the public schools” to teach certain specified subjects “using books and materials that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy.” § 1003.42, Fla. Stat. These specifically required teachings, which are defined and described in varying degrees of detail, include: the “history of the state”; “conservation of natural resources”; “the elementary principles of agriculture”; “flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute”; the “study” of Hispanic and women’s contributions to society; kindness to animals; the “history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty … and how [these concepts] form the philosophical foundation of our government”; the “history, meaning, significance and effect of the provisions” of the United States Constitution; the “arguments in support of adopting our republican form of government, as they are embodied in the most important of the Federalist Papers”; and “the nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy.” Section 1003.42(2)(f) requires the teaching of the history of the United States, including the period of discovery, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement to the present, and includes the following direction: American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Section 1003.42(2)(h), which requires Florida educators to teach the “history of African-Americans,” specifically requires instruction on: The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and contributions of African Americans to society. Instructional materials shall include the contributions of African Americans to American society. The teaching of the history of the Holocaust is mandated by section 1003.42(2)(g), which provides: (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following: * * * (g) The history of the Holocaust (1933-1945), the systematic, planned annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions. The curriculum for teaching the Holocaust at SRHS included an assembly which all tenth-grade students were required to attend. Schools have discretion in constructing a curriculum. The school’s principal is responsible for determining the contents of the curriculum. A school is not required to have a Holocaust assembly as part of its curriculum, but if an assembly is part of the curriculum, the assembly must be mandatory. A Holocaust assembly was “part of [SRHS’s] mandatory curriculum for tenth- graders.” On April 13, 2018, the mother of a rising SRHS tenth-grader wrote to Dr. Latson “to discuss the Florida Mandate to include Holocaust Education each year in the student’s curriculum” and specifically to ask “in what ways/classes is Holocaust education provided to all of the students.” Dr. Latson answered the parent in an email which included these statements: [A]s far as [H]olocaust studies and the curriculum it can be dealt with in a variety of ways. The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs. Each year we do a Holocaust assembly and we target the 10th graders so every year that group will get a day[‘]s work with the [H]olocaust. We advertise it to the tenth grade parents as [there] are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline. The parent replied to Dr. Latson in another email: Please clarify your statement: “The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs.” The Holocaust is a factual, historical event. It is not a right or a belief. Dr. Latson responded with the following statements: The clarification is that not everyone believes the Holocaust happened and you have your thoughts but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs so they will react differently, my thoughts or beliefs have nothing to do with this because I am a public servant. I have the role to be politically neutral but support all groups in the school. I work to expose students to certain things but not all parents want their students exposed so they will not be and I can’t force the issue … . I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee. I do allow information about the Holocaust to be presented and allow students and parents to make decisions about it accordingly. I do the same with information about slavery, I don’t take a position but allow for the information to be presented and parents to be parents and educate their students accordingly. I am not looking for a situation to divide but just to let all know I don’t have a position on the topic, as an educator. My personal beliefs are separate and will always have no place in my profession. This is a very touchy subject, one I have had conversation with Rabbi Levin about. I am simply letting you know all we can do as a public school within our ability. Dr. Glenda Sheffield, who currently is Petitioner’s chief academic officer, was, at all times relevant to this matter, the instructional superintendent for Petitioner’s south region, which included SRHS. In that earlier position, Sheffield was the immediate supervisor of the principals of more than 20 middle and high schools located in the south region, including Dr. Latson. Sheffield reported to Dr. Ian Saltzman who was the regional superintendent for the south region. Saltzman reported to Mr. Keith Oswald. Oswald, at all times relevant to this matter, was Petitioner’s deputy superintendent of schools. Oswald’s duties included supervision of the regional and instructional superintendents who supervise the schools. Oswald was made aware of the email exchange between Dr. Latson and the SRHS parent by Dianna Fedderman, Petitioner’s assistant superintendent for curriculum, who had been told of it by Maureen Carter, Petitioner’s Holocaust program planner, to whom the parent had forwarded the emails. Carter and Fedderman expressed concern about the content of the emails, which Oswald shared. He forwarded the email chain to Saltzman and Sheffield to take action. Oswald directed Saltzman and Sheffield to keep him informed about the counseling they were giving to Dr. Latson, to address the Holocaust studies at the school to strengthen them, and to meet with the parent and address her concern. The Palm Beach County School District (“District”) did not publicize Dr. Latson’s emails, deciding the matter would be handled at the regional level. Dr. Latson was not disciplined for his statements to the parent. He was, however, counseled. Dr. Latson’s counsel described the coaching as advising Dr. Latson of the need for “more circumspect e-mail, e-mail composition to parents.” Dr. Latson testified that the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Sheffield did not feel the need to address the teaching of the Holocaust at SRHS because she knew from her own experience that the subject was, in fact, infused in the school’s curriculum. She, therefore, focused her work with Dr. Latson on what she considered to be his poor choice of words. Sheffield did work with the parent for “quite some time.” Between April of 2018 and July of 2019, there were numerous meetings and interactions among and between Sheffield, Saltzman, Carter, Fedderman, and the parent. Dr. Latson had no doubt that the District was supportive of him during this time and, again, the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Dr. Latson’s perception was that his emails to the parent were “not clear [and as I read them] some of the things weren’t clear and some of it, in retrospect I could have just left out.” Dr. Latson felt that his words to the parent “obviously gave her the belief that [he] did not believe in the Holocaust, [and he] was just saying [he] wasn’t going to affirm or deny it.” “[S]he kept bringing it back up, so that gave [him] the opinion that she didn’t understand what that meant, even after it was clarified.” When Sheffield was coaching Dr. Latson, she was not aware that he was allowing students to opt out of the Holocaust assembly because the students’ parents did not want the students to be exposed to the contents of the assembly. There is some confusion on this point because Dr. Latson says he never said directly that a student might “opt out” of an assembly with his blessing, but that parents were always free to keep their children home from school for any reason (including not wanting them exposed to the serious nature of the assembly), subject only to District attendance requirements. There is no District or SRHS provision authorizing a parent to opt out of instruction on the Holocaust. If a principal were to allow that practice, she believed he would not be enforcing the mandatory curriculum for the Holocaust. Oswald, who was to be kept informed of the efforts of Saltzman and the others, was told that Dr. Latson had acknowledged that his words were inappropriate. Like Sheffield, Oswald was not aware that Dr. Latson was allowing parents who wished to avoid the Holocaust assembly to “opt out” of it. On May 9, 2019, the same parent sent an email to Saltzman and copied Superintendent Fennoy, Oswald, and Sheffield about a meeting held on May 6, 2019, attended by the complaining parent and School District personnel. The email included the following statement referring specifically to Dr. Latson’s statements in his April 2018 emails: There is one major issue that was not resolved at the meeting, and we do not think there is any resolution other than to remove Mr. Latson as principal from [SRHS]. Mr. Latson made his thoughts very clear at the meeting. When he tried to explain that he thinks his statements in his offensive and erroneous emails last year were misunderstood, he ended up reiterating his offensive and erroneous views. Saltzman informed Oswald that the way the parent characterized the meeting of May 6, 2019, was not accurate. The District, therefore, gave no consideration to the parent’s call for Dr. Latson’s removal from his position at SRHS and took no action in response to the parent’s email. On July 5, 2019, the Palm Beach Post (“Post”) published an article headlined, “Spanish River High’s principal refused to call the Holocaust a fact: A mother pushed for a year to address what she described as a school leader’s failure to separate truth from myth.” Petitioner was aware before its publication that the article was being written. Oswald made a statement to the reporter writing the story. Oswald’s comments were reported in the article: Oswald, who oversees all the county’s principals, said he agreed with the mother that Latson’s email messages were inappropriate but were not reflective of who he was as an educator. Latson, he said, is a popular school leader whose school does more Holocaust education than most campuses and has led the school successfully for years. He should not be judged, he said, solely by a pair of email messages. “It was a hastily, poorly written email that he apologized for,” Oswald said. “That’s some of the challenge that we face when we email back and forth instead of picking up the phone.” Dr. Latson was also aware that the article was being written. The District’s communications director, Claudia Shea, worked with him to prepare a statement to be given to the writer. That statement was reported in the article: In a statement to The Post, Latson apologized for the way he expressed himself in his emails, saying it was not indicative of his actual beliefs or regard for historical fact. “I regret that the verbiage that I used when responding to an email message from a parent, one year ago, did not accurately reflect my professional and personal commitment to educating all students about the atrocities of the Holocaust,” Latson wrote. “It is critical that, as a society, we hold dear the memory of the victims and hold fast to our commitment to counter anti-Semitism,” he continued. He pointed out that [SRHS’s] educational offerings on the Holocaust exceed the state’s requirements. The Holocaust is taught, he said, in ninth- and 10th-grade English classes, as an elective course and in an annual assembly featuring a keynote speaker. The reaction to the publication of the article on July 5, 2019, was “complete outrage, chaos.” Oswald testified to the article’s impact: Q. Can you tell us how it was expressed? A. It was expressed … phone calls, e-mails, meeting with State representatives, locally to the White House. It was completely consuming of all my time on the following days. Q. The following day being the 6th? A. There and forward. The public reaction to the publication of the article and its impact on the District is not disputed. Dr. Latson himself acknowledged it in an email he sent to Oswald and others in the District at 3:36 p.m. on Saturday, July 6, 2019: The release of this article is having the effect the parent who wants to discredit me desired. It is causing a rift in the community, students and parents are attempting to defend me to those in the community who do not know me. I am not the public relations expert but I am wondering if something should come out from me to clear this up. Me not saying anything is fueling questions in the community. I am getting this daily from parents. My parent groups are trying to stop the negativity but they are asking if a statement can come out from me addressing this issue. They state that I have always been vocal and got ahead of things so it is the parents[‘] expectation to hear from me and not doing so is causing questions. Your thoughts? In response to Dr. Latson’s email, Oswald telephoned, telling him “not to make any statements and to not say anything and that we are working internally with the communications department about this.” Oswald specifically directed Dr. Latson not to make any further contact at that time. Oswald told Dr. Latson that they would talk on Monday, July 8, 2019. Dr. Latson testified that Oswald emailed his response to Dr. Latson’s July 6, 2019, email. No such email from Oswald was produced, but Dr. Latson’s telephone records indicate that he received a telephone call from Oswald on July 6, 2019, at 4:56 p.m., which lasted eight minutes. Dr. Latson acknowledged that this telephone call could have been Oswald’s response to his email. In any event, he did confirm being told that “we weren’t going to respond” to the article. The District continued to support Dr. Latson after the article was published. Before he left for vacation, he received a phone call from Sheffield, who told Dr. Latson that she was supporting him. Sheffield, having taken her current position as chief academic officer, was not Dr. Latson’s supervisor on July 6, 2019. She learned of the article’s publication while traveling back from her vacation. She nevertheless called Dr. Latson to ask how he was faring and to tell him to “hold [his] head high” and “[w]e’re going to get through this working together.” In the telephone conversation, Dr. Latson expressed the hope that “this doesn’t ruin [his] reputation.” He also spoke with Dr. Arthur Johnson, the representative of the principal’s association and his friend and former superintendent. Johnson told Dr. Latson to “hold on and let’s see what’s happening.” On Monday, July 8, 2019, Oswald called Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., and they spoke for five minutes. Oswald told Dr. Latson that the “Post article was starting to cause somewhat of a problem for [Oswald] and the District and [Oswald] wanted me to take a voluntary reassignment.” Dr. Latson told Oswald that he “needed to discuss [the reassignment] with [his] family” because he believed that his voluntary acceptance of a reassignment meant that the District could place him where they wanted and that might affect his compensation, and he “had an issue with that.” There is some variance between Dr. Latson’s testimony that he informed Oswald he would “try to get back” to him by noon, and Oswald’s testimony that Dr. Latson “stated he would get back to him that morning.” Dr. Latson admits “that Oswald requested a call back by noon.” Dr. Latson testified that, because he was on vacation, he was not obligated to call Oswald back before noon and, also, testified that, if he had been told to contact Oswald, that would be a directive he had to obey. It is, however, undisputed that Dr. Latson at least told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him by noon and undisputed that, even though he spoke with “individuals” about the reassignment, he made no effort to communicate with Oswald before noon of July 8, 2019. After speaking with Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., Oswald attempted to communicate with him no fewer than six times before noon on July 8, 2019, because of the urgency of the worsening situation. Oswald called Dr. Latson at 8:21 a.m., 9:35 a.m., 10:32 a.m., and 10:42 a.m., and texted him at 8:22 a.m. and 10:32 a.m. When Dr. Latson did not answer the telephone calls, Oswald left voicemails, increasing with urgency, saying the situation was escalating and asking him to return his call. In response to an automated text sent from Dr. Latson’s phone-- indicting he was driving and could not receive notifications, but informing the caller to “reply urgent” to send a notification with the original message-- Oswald texted him the word “urgent” twice at or around 10:32 a.m. Oswald received no response from Dr. Latson. Between 7:36 a.m. and noon on July 8, 2019, Dr. Latson placed nine and received four telephone calls to and from friends, family members, colleagues, and Johnson. Apparently, his cellular phone was functioning during this time. At approximately 12:33 p.m., not having heard back from Dr. Latson, Oswald sent Dr. Latson a text and an email informing him that Oswald was reassigning him to the District Office. Dr. Gonzalo La Cava, Petitioner’s chief of human resources, also left Dr. Latson a voicemail about the reassignment. Oswald’s text to Dr. Latson was as follows: “I have left you numerous messages to contact me. I am reassigning you to the district office. Please call me ASAP.” Dr. Latson’s argument, as opposed to his testimony, explaining his failure to respond to Oswald on July 8, 2019, is inconsistent. Dr. Latson initially justified his lack of a response to Oswald by arguing that the text he received from Oswald about being removed as principal of SRHS “did not seem to invite a response.” In fact, that text closed with the words, “Please call me ASAP.” In his Answer, Dr. Latson alleged that after he received the message about the re-assignment, he “attempted to email Oswald, but the message did not go through.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he tried to text Oswald around 12:30 p.m., but the text did not go through. He also testified that he attempted to email Oswald at 9:30 p.m. from Jamaica. Dr. Latson explains his lack of response to Oswald by saying he was already on the phone whenever Oswald was trying to call and the calls could not have gone through. His telephone records, however, showed that other calls he was making during this time were interrupted and he was able to connect with the incoming caller. It is undisputed that Dr. Latson received Oswald’s communication telling him that he was being reassigned to the District Office. He admits he told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him specifically to tell Oswald whether he would accept the voluntary assignment. Dr. Latson’s failure to respond to Oswald’s several attempts to speak with him is consistent with a decision not to accept the voluntary reassignment. Contradicting testimony was given at hearing regarding whether Dr. Latson’s request to travel to Jamaica in July had even been approved or known about by Petitioner. A District spreadsheet showing a week-long leave beginning July 8, 2019, was offered into evidence and removed any doubt as to whether Dr. Latson was on recognized or approved leave. The public reaction that followed publication of the July 5, 2019, article was somewhat lessened by news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment, and, “after he was reassigned, there was some calming in the District.” The reassignment was widely publicized. The New York Times published an article datelined July 8, 2019, under the headline, “Principal Who Tried to Stay Politically Neutral About Holocaust Is Removed.” Although he did not respond to Oswald, Dr. Latson did email the faculty and staff at SRHS. The email was obtained by the author of the July 5, 2019, article. His email opened with the paragraph: I have been reassigned to the district office due to a statement that was not accurately relayed to the newspaper by one of our parents. It is unfortunate that someone can make a false statement and do so anonymously and it holds credibility but that is the world we live in. Dr. Latson describes his email as “a necessary and righteous denial of a false allegation.” He describes the “false statement”--the statement that was “not accurately relayed to the newspaper by a parent”--to be that “I was hesitant and I wouldn’t--I avoided confrontation with Holocaust deniers [and] that was not true [and] it also stated that, you know, I denied that the Holocaust occurred [and] that’s not true.” “She can fear my reluctance, but I had no reluctance, so that would be an incorrect statement.” However, in explaining his reasoning, Dr. Latson admits that the statements of the parent contained in the article were reported as the parent’s opinion and that, although she did not doubt that he knew the Holocaust was real, she “feared” that his reluctance to say so stemmed from a desire to “avoid confronting parents who deny the Holocaust reality.” He also made clear that the “statement” that was “relayed” by the parent to which he referred in his email to staff were, in fact, the statements that he had written in April of 2018. Dr. Latson believes that as an educator mandated by law to teach the history of the Holocaust, he is required--by the very statute which imposes that duty, to be tolerant of those who would deny that the Holocaust is historical fact, to the point of allowing some to avoid attending Holocaust remembrance assemblies required of all students. In his email to the complaining parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he could not, as a school district employee, say “the Holocaust is a factual, historical event.” At hearing, he testified that, although he could as a District employee state whether he believes the Holocaust to be a fact, he had the “option to be politically neutral.” In his email to the parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he advertised the tenth-grade Holocaust assembly “as there are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he advertised the assembly so parents would know, in case a teacher marked a child who was attending the assembly absent. He testified that some parents do not want their children to attend the Holocaust assembly because of the graphic nature of the teaching materials used, and he is not “going to force a child to sit in a room where their parents don’t want them to be.” The District’s absence policy can be used to allow students to stay home from school during the Holocaust remembrance assembly, if the parents so desire. He believes that the statute mandating the teaching of the Holocaust as history requires that he be tolerant of those who do not want their children to be shown the graphic images of the atrocities, but that they could still learn from the required teachings through other means. Dr. Latson sent an email to faculty and staff at SRHS on the afternoon of July 8, 2019. Oswald, Fennoy, and the District did not learn of Dr. Latson’s statement concerning the complaining parent in this email until late that evening. Dr. Latson testified it was a common practice for principals leaving a school to inform the staff of their departure so they can prepare themselves for a change in administration, which generally means that an entering principal might do things a bit differently. He believed it was important to deliver the message of his leaving as early as possible. He admitted he wrote the email to staff quickly and did not take the time to fully consider the repercussions of his words regarding the complaining parent. He was frustrated that he had lost the support of the District at the time he wrote the email, after having received their support prior to that time. He admitted he did not do a good job of expressing his frustration, but he never believed the email would be seen by anyone but the faculty and staff at SRHS. While news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment had dampened the public reaction which the District was dealing with after publication of the July 5, 2019, article, Dr. Latson’s statement in the email re-energized the public. Instead of reconciliation over his poorly worded April 2018 emails, Dr. Latson’s placement of blame on the parent undermined the apology and made matters worse. There was “complete outrage [by District personnel] that he would do that to a parent.” An article which appeared in the Post on July 9, 2019, was headlined, “More calls for Spanish River High principal’s firing after he blames parent.” The article included the sub-heading, “Principal William Latson’s farewell message prompted an anti-hate group and two Boca-area legislators to join calls for his termination.” On July 10, 2019, the Post published an article headlined, “In defiant farewell, ousted principal blames parent.” Dr. Latson does not dispute that the public reaction to his email was negative, which he learned of while he was still in Jamaica. The personal impact of Dr. Latson’s statement in the July 8, 2019, email was demonstrated by those who testified on behalf of him. Dr. Latson conceded that he did not know the reasons for his reassignment at the time he wrote the email to SRHS faculty and staff. He wrote to his staff that he was reassigned because of a statement inaccurately relayed to the newspaper. He believes the statement to be that he did not want to confront Holocaust deniers. In fact, in the predetermination hearing, Dr. Latson’s representative began the defense with the statement that the District “cannot remove a principal or adversely transfer him for not being zealous enough in a parent’s personal crusade against anti-Semitism.” That is not how Dr. Latson’s supporters saw it. The record makes clear that the controversy was about Dr. Latson’s earlier words, specifically, that, as a public educator who was mandated to teach the history of the Holocaust, he thought it would be improper for him to state that the Holocaust was a fact since he would not be acting in a neutral manner as an educator. Shari Fox, the Magnet Academy coordinator at SRHS, testified that she specifically asked Dr. Latson, “What is controversial about the Holocaust?” His response was that he did not think it was controversial in the beginning, but it has more recently come to his attention that Holocaust deniers exist, which makes its existence controversial. Mr. Aaron Ryan Wells, a SRHS teacher and debate coach, described a news article that “was essentially fabricated in the sense that it didn’t give all the facts, basically creates the disaster that removes a man of three decades from his post.” Because of Dr. Latson’s treatment, Wells “treads lightly even when teaching geography.” He has had inquiries regarding whether the Holocaust is even an appropriate subject for high school students. This incident detracts from the power of the course that introduces the skill that is supposed to be introduced with these types of students, namely tolerance and respect for others who may be different from you. He took from Dr. Latson’s reassignment the lesson that a single parent can question how you teach a subject, which could potentially result in your reassignment or termination as an educator should you fail to bend to the parent’s wishes. The lesson and perception that Wells and others took from Dr. Latson’s removal was that you should not teach controversial subjects. In fact, and as a matter of law, the State of Florida does not consider the occurrence of the Holocaust to be controversial. It does not and cannot prevent any student or parent from holding the absurd “belief” that the Holocaust did not happen. It can and does mandate that the student will be taught that history is not opinion or belief and that the Holocaust did occur. Through his actions, Dr. Latson caused a great number of people to doubt the commitment of the District to honor that mandate. His unilateral attribution of the reasons for his termination caused further disruption in the SRHS community. Many SRHS faculty and staff were left with the idea that Dr. Latson was reassigned because of the April 2018 emails, and were left with a sense of “injustice” and “unfairness.” The Community, the faculty, and the staff were angry, and some of that anger was directed at the complaining parent and her student. Dr. Latson’s allocation of blame to the parent and pointing out a “false statement” also sowed discontent among the faculty and staff, directed towards the District. Because Dr. Latson’s email stating the reasons for his reassignment were the April 2018 emails and, what he considered to be, a false statement from a parent, the faculty and staff felt that the District did not support the staff. Prior to learning of Dr. Latson’s July 8, 2019, email, the District had not taken any action to terminate him. Dr. Latson believes he was terminated because of outside pressure, to satisfy the not insignificant group of public officials and members of the public who called for his resignation. But those calls were made some time before he was terminated. Despite those calls, the District took Dr. Latson at his word, that he had been misunderstood, that his emails could be worded better, and that he understood the parents’ perception of his views. After the newspaper article of July 5, 2019, was published, when Oswald faced the reaction of the public and public officials, the District stood by Dr. Latson. The article itself contained Oswald’s defense of Dr. Latson, that he had written a poorly worded email. Even after Dr. Latson made no effort to contact Oswald before noon on July 8, 2019, the District did not move to terminate him. He was reassigned. Not until Dr. Latson made clear that he had not been misinterpreted in his “neutrality” statements to the complaining parent and it was clear to the District personnel involved that he was not walking back these statements, did Fennoy conclude that Dr. Latson’s employment was incompatible with the District’s commitment to teach the Holocaust. At some level, Dr. Latson believed that parents who do not want their children to be taught the Holocaust should be allowed to keep their children out of school on that day. He believed that he had a professional obligation to be neutral on matters of historical fact, even as espoused by members of, for example, the Flat Earth Society. Further, he believed that a statute that mandated the teaching of the Holocaust in a way that promoted tolerance required the teacher to be tolerant of those who said the history to be taught was, in fact, not history. Johnson, a long-serving principal, former Palm Beach County school superintendent, and now a consultant to principals, testified that no progressive discipline was imposed on Dr. Latson. Respondent admitted into evidence a document entitled “The Discipline Process, A Guide for Principals and Department Heads.” He testified the manual is still in existence and used by the District. Describing the process, Johnson discussed how, typically, “we start from the bottom and move to the top,” beginning with a verbal reprimand, followed by a written reprimand, then a short-term suspension, followed by a longer-term suspension, and, ultimately, a termination. He noted that there are occasional instances where discipline can go from “zero to one hundred, all the way to termination,” but these must involve “very serious offenses” that “put the District at risk.” He testified that the initial problem here was “an overly zealous parent’s intolerance of Dr. Latson’s tolerance.” He believes that an educator’s role is to be neutral and provide both sides of an issue. “You stick with the facts.” “You present both sides of the story. And you as a teacher or administrator may have to become very neutral, meaning you can’t advocate.” “We are definitely not in a position to proselytize or to indoctrinate young people,” he testified. He did admit that Dr. Latson could have used better language to communicate his thoughts on neutrality and to communicate with faculty and staff via email. Dr. Ben Marlin, another former Palm Beach County school superintendent, concurred with Johnson’s analysis and the appropriateness of exercising progressive discipline in this case. He likened the process to a ladder, with the penalty growing more severe the higher you climb. He testified that he would not have terminated Dr. Latson under the circumstances of this case. He would have resolved the matter through a meeting with a possible verbal reprimand. If the behavior occurred again, he would consider a written reprimand. Subsequent violations would result in more severe penalties. The testimony of the two former superintendents was not challenged or rebutted by Petitioner. No witnesses were called to state that progressive discipline was not applicable to this matter. Fox testified “we have to stay neutral in all of these topics [including the Holocaust] and just explain the facts to the students and guide the information and the discussion.” Fox specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti-Semitic. According to SRHS history teacher, Ms. Rachel Ostrow, the teacher’s role is “to present the facts, to guide the discussion amongst the students. But I lay out the facts from every point of view and then we discuss the content.” Ostrow specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti- Semitic. On July 17, 2019, Dr. Latson received notice that an administrative investigation had been opened by the Department of Employee and Labor Relations related to Ethical Misconduct. An investigative report was authored by Ms. Vicki Evans-Paré on August 23, 2019. On September 26, 2019, Dr. Latson received a copy of the investigative file, including the written investigative report. On October 7, 2019, a predetermination meeting was held to allow Dr. Latson to respond to the allegations, produce any documents that he believed would be supportive of his position, or rebut information in the investigation materials he was provided. He submitted a written response to the potential charges and his representatives, Dr. Thomas E. Elfers and Johnson provided oral presentations. Dr. Latson’s response at the predetermination meeting again compared the Holocaust to a belief, claiming that “constitutional liberty interests are involved: an interest in not being forced to reveal information about personal beliefs and an interest in being forced to make statements about one’s views.” The response preached neutrality in the presentation of “various hot buttons or touchy subjects.” Dr. Latson believed his body of work as an educator should have been taken into account and should not have resulted in a termination of his employment. He had never been disciplined previously by the District or the Educational Practice Commission in 26 years as an educator. He had received a “highly effective evaluation” for each of his eight years as the principal of SRHS, and the highest possible evaluation for 25 of his 26 years as an educator. Under his leadership, Dr. Latson oversaw the raising of SRHS from a “B” to an “A” rating in 2012, which was maintained throughout his tenure as principal. He achieved many successes as principal, such as significantly raising the school’s national academic ranking, being recognized by the District as the highest performing Palm Beach County school in advanced academic studies, and creating a school environment described by teacher Wells as “phenomenal,” and engendering an atmosphere of trust among the teachers, as stated by Fox and Ostrow at hearing. When asked by his counsel at hearing, Dr. Latson unequivocally stated that he is not Anti-Semitic. This statement was unrebutted by Petitioner. On October 11, 2019, however, based upon the information presented to him from the investigation and the predetermination meeting, Fennoy informed Dr. Latson that there was just cause, which can be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, to warrant his termination from his position as a principal, and that Fennoy would recommend Dr. Latson’s suspension without pay and termination of employment at the October 30, 2019, School Board meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Dr. Latson; awarding him his lost wages for the period beginning with his suspension without pay; and transferring him to a position within the District, as determined by the superintendent, commensurate with his qualifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 13th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Elfers 14036 Southwest 148th Lane Miami, Florida 33186 (eServed) Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Craig J. Freger, Esquire 16247 Northwest 15th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028-1223 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
