The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated August 21, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002). At all times material hereto, Mr. Moore was employed full-time with the School Board as a paraprofessional at Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick) and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board in accordance with Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2002). The UTD Contract, between the School Board and UTD, also governs the terms and conditions of Mr. Moore's employment. In April 1977, Mr. Moore began his employment with the School Board and was assigned to Renick. He remained at Renick as a paraprofessional through February 9, 2003. In December 1996, prior to beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Moore was charged with possession of stolen property and driving with a suspended license and an expired registration. A few months later, on February 20, 1997, Mr. Moore completed an application for employment with the School Board and indicated on the application that he had no criminal charges pending. However, at the time that he made application for employment, the charges of December 1996 were pending. Mr. Moore does not contest several performance problems and deficiencies for the period October 19, 1998 through March 10, 2002. By memorandum dated October 27, 1998, Mr. Moore was notified by the assistant principal, James DeWitt, that he violated School Board policy on October 19, 1998, by allowing a student to be in possession of the key to his classroom. Mr. DeWitt advised Mr. Moore that a reoccurrence of the violation would lead to a conference-for-the-record. By memorandum dated October 17, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that he had arrived late at school that same day without notifying the main office of his tardiness in accordance with the UTD Contract. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the established work hours and advised Mr. Moore that further failure to adhere to his work schedule would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 1, 2000, he (Mr. Moore) was playing a game on his computer while the students were taking a test even though he was required to monitor the test; and that his (Mr. Moore's) failure to supervise and monitor the test resulted in a student writing the answers in the wrong section of the test. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that, among other things, his lack of supervision would not be tolerated and that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 5, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by the principal, Eugenia Smith, that, among other things, he was on leave without authorization for 17 days of the 2000-2001 school year, from February 8, 2001 through March 5, 2001. Ms. Smith directed Mr. Moore to, within three (3) days of the date of the memorandum, provide his intended date of return or resign from employment with the School Board. By memorandum dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on December 5, 2001, because of his (Mr. Moore's) lack of supervision, a student pushed the emergency call button twice even though no emergency existed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 8, 2002, Ms. Smith notified Mr. Moore that he had been tardy for several days, specifying the days of tardiness. On March 8, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore to address his tardiness, including noncompliance with verbal and written directives regarding his tardiness. Also present were, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeWitt, and a UTD representative. At the conference-for-the-record Mr. Moore was given specific directives regarding future tardiness, which were to be to work on time and to adhere to procedures in the UTD contract. A summary of the conference-for-the-record dated March 10, 2002, was prepared and was subsequently signed by Mr. Moore. By memorandum dated November 8, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 7, 2002, Mr. Moore's personal telephone was confiscated because it had been used in the classroom as an extension of the school's telephone system. By memorandum dated November 13, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that his (Mr. Moore's) use of his personal telephone as an extension of the school's telephone system was a violation of the School Board's policy prohibiting telephones in the classroom unless approved by the administration. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to School Board policies and advised Mr. Moore that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Moore does not contest violating the School Board's policy regarding the use of his personal telephone in the classroom. By memorandum dated January 17, 2003, Mr. DeWitt notified Mr. Moore that, on January 22, 2003, he (Mr. Moore) left the school for approximately one and one-half hour, from approximately 11:50 a.m. to 2:20 a.m., without signing-out as required by the School Board's policy. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the scheduled work hours and advised (Mr. Moore) that his failure to so adhere would result in further disciplinary action. On January 22, 2003, Mr. Moore was arrested based on an outstanding warrant for the December 1996 charges previously indicated. Renick is a special center for emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed students. The student's have emotional problems, which interfere with their ability to learn. The teachers, including paraprofessionals, at Renick are specially trained to deal with the behavior problems of the students. The School Board adheres to a graduated system of discipline for students, which consists of the following: first, student conferences are held, then parent conferences, and then parent-teacher conferences; and after the conferences, indoor suspension, then detention, and, lastly, outdoor suspension. Also, located in each classroom is a call button to call security for assistance if needed. The use of profanity and corporal punishment is prohibited by School Board rules. As a paraprofessional with the School Board for several years, Mr. Moore knew or should have known the School Board's graduated system of discipline, rules, and policies. Training is provided for teachers, including paraprofessionals, in the management of students at Renick, who are misbehaving. Also, in-house workshops are provided. The training is "crisis management," which was formerly safe physical management. In crisis management, physical restraint is the last resort; interventions are used instead. A student's parent must consent in writing for the use of physical restraint; however, even without consent, physical restraint may be used for situations that do not de-escalate. If physical restraint is used, the situation must be documented and the student's parent must be notified. One intervention is a prearranged intervention in which the student and teacher agree on a technique to be used by the teacher to make the student aware that his/her behavior is escalating. The prearranged intervention may be, for instance, a pulling of the student's ear. If the prearrange intervention fails to de-escalate the student's behavior, another intervention referred to as proximity control may be used. In this technique, the student feels the teacher's presence by the teacher moving towards the student, which interrupts the student's behavior. If no interventions, whether verbal or non-verbal, de- escalates the student's behavior, which begins to get out-of- control, forms of physical restraint may be used, as a last resort. One form of physical restraint is for the teacher to hold the student with his/her hand to communicate to that student that his/her behavior is escalating, with safety being the primary issue. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may resort to a more restrictive restraint such as the cradle. In using this technique, both the student and teacher are standing, with the student having his/her back to the teacher, and the teacher holding the student, with safety being the primary issue. Again, the teacher is attempting to have the student realize that his/her behavior is escalating. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may take the student to the floor. One technique used is the cradle assist. In this technique, the student is brought to the floor by the teacher and the student is held by the teacher in a cradle-like position. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher, with the assistance of a colleague, may hold the student to the floor. Using a colleague, assists the student in calming down. Whenever physical restraint is used, the parents of the student are notified. Furthermore, the student is counseled, and the student's file must be documented regarding the use of physical restraint. Mr. Moore received the training as to the interventions and the physical restraints. Furthermore, he attended at least one in-house workshop. Therefore, Mr. Moore had knowledge of the behavior techniques. A past performance problem involving Mr. Moore and a student was documented by a memorandum dated July 24, 1998 from Mr. DeWitt to Mr. Moore. The memorandum addressed "alleged misconduct" by Mr. Moore committed on July 20, 1998, in which Mr. Moore allegedly choked a student, when he was putting the student in time-out, and used inappropriate language by calling the student a "faggot." Although the memorandum indicated that Mr. Moore stated that he may have grabbed the student's neck, the memorandum did not indicate that the allegation was confirmed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to "refrain from using inappropriate procedures and language" while performing his duties. The statement by Mr. Moore showed that he admitted, not denied, that he did take some action with the student. Regarding incidents with students, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges a specific incident, occurring on December 19, 2002, between Mr. Moore and a student, J. G. Allegedly, Mr. Moore told J. G. that he "was going to kill him" and "for him [J. G.] to meet him [Mr. Moore] at the store in five minutes since he [J. G.] was bad, so they could fight"; and that he "was going to make him [J. G.] his girl"; Furthermore, Mr. Moore allegedly called J. G. a "fat bitch." Additionally, Mr. Moore allegedly told another student, X. W., that he would "fuck X. W.'s mother in the grave" and called X. W. a "faggot." Also, Mr. Moore allegedly grabbed another student, I. J., and subsequently, another student, M. S., and pulled their arms behind their backs and pushed them against a wall. Further, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges contains a general allegation of how Mr. Moore treated students, i.e., "Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, pushed students to the ground, picked a student up and slammed him to the floor, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay." As to the general allegation, student D. J. testified regarding Mr. Moore pushing a student to the ground. D. J. testified that he did not want to do his work and attempted to leave the classroom without permission from Mr. Moore; that Mr. Moore would not allow him to leave the room; and that Mr. Moore placed him on the floor, face first, with his (D. J.'s) arms behind his back in a manner that hurt him (D. J.). No one else was in the classroom to witness the alleged incident. No specific time period was provided for the alleged incident. Mr. Moore's testimony did not address this particular incident. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. D. J.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find D. J.'s testimony convincing. Even if Mr. Moore engaged in the physical restraint of D. J., the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. D. J. was attempting to force his way out of the class. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the incident and notify D. J.'s parents that physical restraint was used. Also, as to the general allegation, student M. L. testified regarding picking a student up and slamming the student to the floor. M. L. testified that, except for him, all the other students in the class had completed their work and were in the rear of the classroom with the teacher; that he had just completed his work and was walking to the rear of the class when Mr. Moore walked into the classroom; that Mr. Moore told him that he was out of his seat without permission; and that Mr. Moore picked him up and slammed him to the floor, placing his (Mr. Moore's) knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore testified that M. L. was out of his seat without permission and that M. L. was running in the classroom and would not sit down even though Mr. Moore asked him to sit down and stop running. M. L. admitted that he had been disciplined before for running around in the classroom. Mr. Moore admits that he put M. L. to the floor, which de-escalated the situation, and that he then allowed M. L. to get up. Furthermore, Mr. Moore admits that he did not document the incident and did not notify the parents of M. L. that physical restraint had been used on M. L. No testimony was presented from Mr. Moore's supervising teacher, Jaime Calaf, regarding the incident with M. L. No other testimony was presented. As to the incident with M. L., the only witnesses testifying were M. L. and Mr. Moore. In considering M. L.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. M. L.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, and his admission that he had been disciplined for the same action previously detracted from the credibility of his testimony. Specifically, the undersigned is not convinced that M. L. had completed his work, that he was not disruptive, that Mr. Moore slammed M. L. to the floor, and that Mr. Moore put his knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore admits that he put, not slammed, M. L. to the floor. The undersigned does not find M. L.'s testimony convincing. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the situation and failed to notify the parents of M. L. as required that physical restraint had been used with M. L. Regarding the general allegation that Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay, M. L. testified as to Mr. Moore punching students in the arm, who were misbehaving, and O. B. testified as to Mr. Moore hitting students with a broom. M. L. testified that, at times, Mr. Moore punched him and other students in the arm when they were misbehaving. The undersigned's decision as to M. L.'s credibility remains the same. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore punched students who were misbehaving. O. B. testified that Mr. Moore attempted to hit him once with a broom when he was misbehaving and, at times, hit other students with a broom when they were misbehaving. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. O. B. testified that he did not consider J. B. to be a disruptive student; whereas, the evidence presented, regarding J. B., clearly indicates that J. B. is a disruptive student. O. B.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, together with his unsupported conclusion that J. B. was not a disruptive student, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find O. B.'s testimony convincing. Further, Mr. Calaf testified that, on occasions, he observed Mr. Moore grabbing students in the back and getting rough with them. Mr. Calaf did not testify that he reported his observations to the principal or other person who could exact discipline upon Mr. Moore. Moreover, Mr. Calaf did not testify that what he observed was inappropriate or contrary to the established crisis management training. Consequently, Mr. Calaf's observations cannot be used to support the alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr. Moore. Regarding the specific incident involving J. G. in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, according to the principal of Renick, Eugenia Smith, she would not have recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore if it had not been for the incident on December 19, 2002, involving J. G., a middle school student at the time. No dispute exists that the School Board uses progressive discipline. For Ms. Smith, the incident involving J. G. was the incident that triggered the dismissal of Mr. Moore. As a result, this incident is the defining incident for Ms. Smith's decision to recommend dismissal of Mr. Moore and, therefore, if this incident is not proven, the basis for her recommendation of Mr. Moore's dismissal no longer exists. As to the specific incident involving J. G., the witnesses to the incident are J. G., other Renick students in the class, and Mr. Moore. No dispute in the testimony exists that, on December 19, 2002, Mr. Moore and J. G. got into a shouting match and that Mr. Moore never touched J. G. At Renick, J. G. was disruptive in his classes and had had many discipline problems. One psychologist at Renick, Joseph Strasko, described J. G. as physically disruptive and aggressive. Another psychologist at Renick, Theodore Cox, Jr., had observed J. G. engaging in inappropriate behavior. Also, Mr. Strasko described J. G. as a student who would not tell the truth when it was detrimental to him (J. G.); whereas, Mr. Cox had not known J. G. to tell an untruth. As to whether J. G. would tell the truth, the undersigned finds Mr. Strasko to be more credible and, therefore, finds that J. G. will not tell the truth when it is detrimental to him (J. G.). As to what lead to the shouting match, only Mr. Moore was certain as to what happened. The undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony credible regarding this aspect of the incident. J. G. was bullying a new student in the class and had physically moved toward the new student. Mr. Moore interceded to stop the bullying by J. G. and to protect the new student, requesting J. G. to take his seat but J. G. refused. Mr. Moore kept himself between J. G. and the new student, thereby, preventing J. G. from advancing upon the new student. What Mr. Moore said during the shouting match is where the testimony differs. However, no dispute exists as to certain aspects of the incident: that J. G. became angry and disrespectful toward Mr. Moore; that J. G. stated to Mr. Moore that, if Mr. Moore put his hands on him, he (J. G.) would bring his father and brother to Renick and they would deal with Mr. Moore; and that J. G. used profanity with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore denies that he used profanity or disparaging remarks during the incident with J. G. The crisis management expert, Mr. Strasko,2 testified that it is not appropriate for a teacher to shout profanities at a student who is shouting profanities at the teacher; and that a teacher is required to be professional even when students are being disruptive. X. W., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that Mr. Moore called J. G. a "fat bitch" and called him (X. W.) a "punk." X. W. is J. G.'s cousin. D. J., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that he did not hear about what J. G. and Mr. Moore were arguing. However, D. J. testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother and that he (Mr. Moore) would "lay him on the ground." O. B. a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother to the store and that they would deal with it then. O. B. further testified that J. G. and Mr. Moore were calling each other gay and other derogatory names. Further, regarding the incident on December 19, 2002, Mr. Calaf did not witness the incident. Mr. Calaf returned to the class after the incident had occurred and observed J. G. crying and Mr. Moore and J. G. shouting at each other. Mr. Calaf did not testify as to what Mr. Moore and J. G. were shouting but did testify that he advised Mr. Moore that he (Mr. Moore) should not shout at students and should always remain professional, not getting on the level of the students. As to J. G.’s being disruptive in the class, Mr. Calaf testified that J. G. was generally disruptive and that usually Mr. Moore could calm J. G. down. The undersigned finds Mr. Calaf's testimony credible. In considering J. G.'s credibility, the aforementioned factors describing J. G. must be considered. In considering X. W.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but also that teachers are required not to use profanity and to be professional. Further, the undersigned must consider the fact that X. W. is J. G.'s cousin, which was unbeknownst to Ms. Smith. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider the factor that D. J. complained that Mr. Moore used physical restraint against him in an earlier incident in which the only witnesses were he and Mr. Moore. The incident and D. J.'s credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider that O. B. complained that he observed Mr. Moore hitting students at Renick with a broom. The incident and O. B's credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering Mr. Moore's credibility, the character testimony provided by Mr. Strasko and the character letters provided by Mr. Moore's colleagues must be considered. Mr. Strasko and Mr. Moore's colleagues address, among other things, what they consider the appropriate manner in which Mr. Moore handled students who were having behavior problems. Further, Mr. Moore's length of employment with the School Board, and his aforementioned past performance situations must be considered, including the one documented alleged inappropriate crisis management technique and language used by Mr. Moore in July 1998. Taking all of the aforementioned factors of credibility into consideration, the undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony more credible than the students, the character testimony and letters persuasive, and the lack of evidence, as to what was said, by a witness who was not involved in the incident, i.e., Mr. Calaf. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moore did not use profanity during the incident of December 19, 2002. Mr. Moore did not report the incident involving J. G. Mr. Moore did not believe that the incident rose to the level that reporting was necessary. Moreover, no physical restraint was used. On May 1, 2003, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to review his employment history and future employment with the School Board. Among those in attendance with Mr. Moore were a UTD advocate, Ms. Smith, and the assistant superintendent for the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Student/Career Services. By a summary of the conference- for-the-record, dated June 6, 2003, the conference-for-the record was memoralized. By memorandum dated May 28, 2003, Ms. Smith and the assistant superintendent recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore. By letter dated August 21, 2003, the School Board notified Mr. Moore that at its meeting on August 20, 2003, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: Finding Algernon J. Moore, Jr. in violation of Counts I and IV in accordance with this Recommended Order. Dismissing Counts II and III. Upholding the suspension of Algernon J. Moore, Jr. Dismissing Algernon J. Moore, Jr. from all employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of December, 2004.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Mr. Alain Sanon, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and implementing administrative rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Sanon holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1010405, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the complaint, Mr. Sanon was employed as an intensive math teacher at John F. Kennedy Middle School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Sanon was born in Haiti and lived there most of his life. He came to the United States in 2003. His native language is French. He also speaks Creole and is fluent in English. In August 2017, Mr. Sanon taught a seventh-grade intensive math class during fifth period. About 50 percent of this class was Haitian-American, and some students in the class spoke French and Creole. Student A.R. testified at hearing that, on August 27, 2013, Student N.R. was laughing and talking with some other students who did not quiet down after Mr. Sanon asked them to. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon asked them if they were gay. At this question, many of the students in the class started laughing. Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon then said, "This is a no homo zone." Student A.R. testified that Mr. Sanon said these things in a playful, not hostile manner, as a joke. Student A.R. testified that Student N.R. looked embarrassed. Mr. Sanon, in his deposition and later at hearing, admitted that he used the word "gay," but denied that he used it to refer to anyone as a homosexual, even jokingly, but rather used it in the sense of "happy." He testified that it was all a misunderstanding stemming from his question in French to Student N.R. and his companions: "Why are you so happy today?" Mr. Sanon explained that the French word for happy is "gaie" and that, when other students in the class heard that word, they began to say that Mr. Sanon had made an allusion to the boys' sexual preferences. Mr. Sanon testified that students were becoming excited and things were beginning to get out of hand, so he then said, "You know what? This is no homo calling. Nobody is calling anybody names in this classroom." He denies ever saying, "This is a no homo zone." The testimony of Student A.R., as supplemented by the written statements of other students, is more credible than that of Mr. Sanon, and Student A.R.'s testimony is credited. Student N.R. was removed from Mr. Sanon's class. The other fifth-period students remained with Mr. Sanon for the rest of the school year. It can be reasonably inferred, from Student A.R.'s testimony and the fact that Student N.R. was subsequently removed from Mr. Sanon's class, that Student N.R. was embarrassed by the incident. This is corroborated by Student N.R.'s written hearsay statement. Mr. Sanon has been employed at the Miami-Dade County School District for about 12 years. He has never before had any discipline imposed against his license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Mr. Alain Sanon in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through his violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A- 10.081(3)(e), and issuing him a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Mr. William Doran, violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) or (j), Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Mr. Doran holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1013018, covering the areas of general science, social science, and exceptional student education, which is valid through June 30, 2019. At all times relevant to the complaint, Mr. Doran was employed as a teacher at Southport Middle School in the St. Lucie County School District. On or about May 3, 2013, Mr. Doran became involved in a verbal altercation with M.M., a 13-year-old male student. Student A.L. was present in the classroom on May 3, 2013. She made a video recording of a portion of the altercation between Mr. Doran and M.M. on her cell phone. Shortly after the altercation, school authorities took A.L.'s phone. Later, at hearing, A.L. viewed a video and credibly testified that it was the video recording that she had made. A.L. identified Mr. Doran and M.M. on the video. That video, offered into evidence, was the entire video that she recorded. It is clear under all of the circumstances that it fairly and accurately represented the portion of the altercation that A.L. videotaped. A.L. testified that she was aware that she violated a rule of the St. Lucie County School Board that did not allow her to use her cell phone in class. A.L. did not ask Mr. Doran if she could take the video. She testified that no one knew that she was videotaping the incident. There is no evidence that Mr. Doran, occupied with the confrontation with M.M., was aware that he was being recorded. However, Mr. Doran's recorded oral communications took place in a public school classroom, his place of employment. The statements were made publicly in the presence of many students other than M.M., the student he was addressing. Mr. Doran had no reasonable expectation that those comments would remain private between M.M. and himself. The altercation arose as a result of students playing a slap game in which they touch hands and strike each other until one suffers enough pain to let go. As Mr. Doran described in testimony under oath in an earlier proceeding, the incident began after Mr. Doran directed M.M. and another student to stop playing the game: Q: Did they? A: Yes. M.M. did. Although he then told me, "Well, I like playing this game because it makes me feel good, Mr. Doran." Q: What did you reply? A: I said, "I don't care how much you like it. I don't care if you like jumping off a bridge, you're not going to do it in this classroom." Q: Did Mr. M.M. respond? A: He then – he then responded, "Oh, you want me to jump off of a bridge." And I said, "No, that isn't what I said." * * * Well, M.M. continued to protest and I asked him to please quiet down and allow the class to continue its work and I did this a couple of times. He refused to do it and he finally said, "Get out of my face." As Mr. Doran described, he was four to five feet away from M.M. when M.M. said this, but he then moved closer to M.M. and asked M.M., "Well, what are you going to do about it?" M.M. then repeated "get out of my face" several times and began using obscenities in the classroom. During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran called M.M. a coward. During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran stood over M.M. and repeatedly told M.M. to "[g]o ahead and hit me." During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran told M.M., "Come on big man--what you are going to do about it, hit me?" During the course of the altercation with M.M., Mr. Doran told M.M. to hit him because it would "make my day." It is clear that Mr. Doran's response to M.M.'s inappropriate attitude and language did not defuse the situation, and in fact had the potential to escalate it. Mr. Doran's behavior changed the nature of the incident from one of a student defying institutional authority into a personal, potentially physical, confrontation between M.M. and Mr. Doran as an individual. On or about March 7, 2014, Mr. Doran told his students that he was getting a new male student in the class, that it was more common for male students to be disabled (ESE), that the student's name indicated he was black, and that the student had a behavior plan. On or about November 5, 2014, Respondent resigned from his teaching position with the St. Lucie County School District. Prior History On November 9, 2010, Mr. Doran received a Summary of Conference from his principal, Ms. Lydia Martin, for making inappropriate comments to students. On May 2, 2011, Mr. Doran received a Letter of Concern from Ms. Martin for abusive or discourteous conduct toward students. On February 13, 2012, Mr. Doran received a Letter of Reprimand from Ms. Martin for violating a directive by discussing a matter under investigation and taking pictures of misbehaving students. On May 5, 2012, Mr. Doran received a Recommendation for Suspension from Ms. Martin for failing to comply with directives. Mr. Doran received satisfactory ratings in every category on his evaluation forms for school years 2006-2007 through 2010-2011 (the years admitted into evidence). He received a few Above Expectation ratings and only one Improvement Expected rating in 2006-2007 and gradually improved through 2009-2010, when he received a majority of Above Expectation ratings, with only a few Meets Expectation ratings. In 2010-2011, he received several Above Expectation ratings, a majority of Meets Expectation ratings, and one Improvement Expected rating.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Mr. William Doran, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and implementing rules. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission revoke his educator's certificate for a period of two years, at the expiration of which time he may receive a new certificate by meeting all certification requirements at the time of his application, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 20th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At the time the Administrative Complaint was filed in this case, Mr. Tullos held Florida teaching certificate number 165642, covering the areas of administration and physical education, which was to expire in June 1995. 2/ At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Tullos was employed as an assistant principal of student services at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") in the Palm Beach County School District. He was employed pursuant to a three-year contract commencing in July 1990 and terminating in July 1993. 3/ Mr. Tullos has been employed since 1965 at what is now known as Glades Central, where he served as dean of boys until the title was changed to assistant principal some twelve years ago. He received appreciation awards for his work with students at Glades Central every year from 1987 through May 1991. Mr. Tullos has had regular contact with female students for many years in his positions as dean of boys and assistant principal of student services. In September 1991, Calvin Taylor issued a "Warning Letter" to Mr. Tullos expressing concerns about his behavior with students. At the time, Mr. Taylor was assistant superintendent for personnel relations with the Palm Beach County School Board. The letter was issued following an informal hearing regarding complaints from several students. These complaints were basically the same as those which are the subject of the instant proceeding. Mr. Taylor's role was to hear the evidence and determine what type of discipline to recommend to the school superintendent. Upon consideration of the evidence presented by the school board investigator and by Mr. Tullos, Mr. Taylor recommended that the appropriate discipline was the issuance of the "Warning Letter." In the letter, Mr. Tullos was admonished to "[b]e very careful about the manner in which you touch and associate with students." In May 1992, Mr. Tullos received an "At Expectation" performance evaluation from Dr. Effie C. Grear, principal of Glades Central. During the 1992-1993 school year, Mr. Tullos was one of three assistant principals at Glades Central and was assigned to work with all ninth-grade students. Lois Lewis and Willie McDonald, the other two assistant principals, were assigned to work with all tenth-grade and one-half of the eleventh-grade students and with all twelfth-grade and one-half of the eleventh-grade students, respectively. Mr. Tullos's duties included student discipline, monitoring the halls and cafeterias, loading and unloading students on the school buses, issuing passes, making arrangements for medical care for students injured on campus and contacting the parents, making arrangements to have unruly students removed from campus, and performing teacher evaluations. Each school day, Mr. Tullos monitored the cafeteria during breakfast. When the bell rang for first period, he, Ms. Lewis, and another school administrator monitored the halls and wrote late passes for students who were tardy. Mr. Tullos wrote a pass for any student who approached him, regardless of grade level. Once the halls cleared, Mr. Tullos usually returned to his office, where he wrote passes for other late students who came to his office and worked on discipline referrals. Mr. Tullos and Ms. Lewis also monitored the cafeteria during the two lunch periods. For most of his work day, Mr. Tullos worked in his office on student discipline referrals, averaging fifty to sixty per week. Discipline referrals are made by teachers, who complete a form giving an explanation of the disciplinary problem with a particular student; the form is normally given to the student who is the subject of the referral, who must take it to the assistant principal assigned to work with the students of his or her grade. Sometimes, teachers ask a student to take a discipline referral form to the office even though that student is not the subject of the referral. Mr. Tullos conducted a conference with the students and/or parents for all referrals within his jurisdiction. Student W. K. 4/ W. K. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She was often in trouble at school during that year and had many discipline referrals. Since she was in the ninth grade, she took the referrals to Mr. Tullos, so she came into frequent contact with him. One day, after she had been repeatedly late to one particular class, she and another student, S. S., were sent to Mr. Tullos's office with discipline referrals. When W. K. was alone with Mr. Tullos in his office, he commented on her legs, saying something to the effect that she had "fine" legs or that her "fine" legs could carry her to class on time, and he told her that she shouldn't be late to class. She thought nothing of the remark about her legs because she had known Mr. Tullos in the community since she was a child and had known him as a nice man. On two other occasions when she was in his office with discipline referrals, Mr. Tullos told her that he would "smooch" her if she got another referral. She understood this to mean that he would kiss her, but, again, she thought nothing of the remark because she did not take it in a negative way. She thought that being kissed by Mr. Tullos would be disgusting and that he was threatening to kiss her so she would not get into trouble again. W. K. had heard other girls talk about Tullos but she never saw him do the things they described. She also heard around school that girls who took discipline referrals to Tullos wouldn't get in trouble. W. K. did not take offense at Mr. Tullos's comment about her legs or his threats to smooch her, but she did think that this behavior was not appropriate for a school administrator. Although she talked about the incidents to all her friends at school, she did not go to anyone in authority to complain. At some point during the 1992-1993 school year, Ms. Lewis, the assistant principal in charge of the tenth- and part of the eleventh-grade students, called her in and asked her about the incidents with Mr. Tullos and asked if she knew any other students who had similar experiences. Shortly after she spoke with Ms. Lewis, she was called into the office of LaVoise Smith, the guidance coordinator at Glades Central, where she told Ms. Smith about the incidents. Student S. S. S. S. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She now attends the Choice school, which is in the Palm Beach County School District. As noted in paragraph 11 above, S. S. was the student who was sent with W. K. to Mr. Tullos's office with discipline referrals for being repeatedly late to one class. According to S. S., when she and W. K. were both in Mr. Tullos's office, he told them that they had pretty legs and were pretty girls. She could not, however, remember his exact words. She felt uncomfortable when he commented on her legs because she had heard other girls talk about Mr. Tullos and the things he would say to them. On another occasion, a teacher asked S. S. to take a discipline referral on another student to Mr. Tullos's office. When she entered his office, he glanced at the form in her hand and told her that, if the referral was for her, he would have to "smooch" her to make her do better. As S. S. was leaving Mr. Tullos's office, Mr. Tullos was leaving as well. S. S. went out of the door first, and Mr. Tullos stopped her by touching the top of her shoulder. When she turned around, his hand dropped to brush the top of her breast. She is not certain that he deliberately dropped his hand from her shoulder. Several times when Mr. Tullos saw S. S. with her boyfriend, he would tell the boyfriend to "leave that girl alone" or something to that effect. Even though he made these remarks in a joking manner, S. S. felt uncomfortable. In fact, she felt uncomfortable "every time he said something." In yet another incident, S. S. and Mr. Tullos were standing in the hallway outside his office when Mr. Tullos told her that her boyfriend was no good for her and that she should give all her "good loving" to him. After this last incident, S. S. and some of her friends discussed their experiences with Mr. Tullos. They decided that someone had to go to the office and report Mr. Tullos's behavior. Shortly after one of the girls reported Mr. Tullos to Ms. Smith, S. S. was called into Ms. Smith's office and interviewed. Student Y. J. Y. J. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime around Christmas, Y. J. was in the cafeteria at lunchtime and asked Mr. Tullos for a quarter. He responded by asking what she would give him in return. She did not know what he meant by this remark, but it made her feel uncomfortable. On another occasion, Mr. Tullos had scheduled a conference with Y. J.'s mother to discuss a discipline referral. Y. J. forgot to tell her mother about the conference, and she used the telephone in Mr. Tullos's office to call her. Y. J. was wearing a low-cut v-necked shirt and a necklace which hung in the cleavage of her breasts. While she was on the telephone, Mr. Tullos commented that the necklace was "a pretty charm," and he reached over and picked the necklace up. As he did so, his hand "slightly" brushed her breast. She was alone with Mr. Tullos in his office, and he was sitting behind the desk while she was standing on the side of the desk. Y. J. does not know if he touched her breast intentionally, and she did not report the incident to school authorities. Sometime around Easter, Y. J. took a discipline referral to Mr. Tullos. They were alone in his office. He asked her when she was going stop giving her "loving to the guys and give him some." This made Y. J. so uncomfortable that she reported the incident to Ms. Lewis either the same day or the next day. After this last incident, but before she went to Ms. Lewis, she talked with a group of her friends about Mr. Tullos's behavior. Several of the girls claimed to have had similar experiences with Mr. Tullos, and some of them said that they blackmailed Mr. Tullos into giving them what they wanted by threatening to tell the administration about his behavior. Up until this time, however, none of the girls had reported Mr. Tullos. When Y. J. said she was going to go to Ms. Lewis to complain, several of the other girls said they would complain also. Y. J. spoke with Ms. Lewis, who sent her to Ms. Smith, the school's guidance coordinator. Y. J. gave Ms. Smith the names of the other girls she knew who had encounters with Mr. Tullos, and they were called in to talk with Ms. Smith. Student T. S. T. S. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. She knew Mr. Tullos because teachers would ask her to take discipline referrals regarding other students to him and because she would ask him for a late pass if he was the first dean she saw in the hall. On several occasions during the 1992-1993 school year, when T. S. approached Mr. Tullos in the hall to obtain a late pass, Mr. Tullos made her wait until last, when there were not many people in the hallways. He then made remarks to her which made her feel uncomfortable, such as telling her after spring break that he missed her, telling her that he was jealous because he saw her hugging a boy (her cousin) in the hall, and telling her that she had to give him a kiss in order to get a late pass. She did not think he was joking about giving him a kiss because he said it on several different occasions. These remarks made her feel very uncomfortable. On "about" four occasions, when she approached him in the hall to obtain a late pass and he made her wait until last, Mr. Tullos hugged her. She felt very uncomfortable because these were not "ordinary" hugs like other teachers gave; rather, "[w]hen he grabbed me he just rubbed." On yet another occasion, a teacher asked T. S. to take a discipline referral regarding another student to Mr. Tullos. She took the referral to his office, and he told her to close the door. She felt that this was not necessary, and she gave him the referral and left his office. T. S. did not discuss her experiences with Mr. Tullos with her girl friends at school, nor did she personally report him. She eventually told her mother, who called the school to report Mr. Tullos's behavior. Student N. B. N. B. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime during that year, N. B. went to Mr. Tullos's office with a discipline referral. She has a lot of jewelry and was wearing several necklaces on that day. He was sitting behind his desk, and she was standing across from him, in front of the desk. Mr. Tullos asked N. B. to give him one of her necklaces, and she told him no. He then asked if she would give him "something else," and reached over the desk as if to grab one of the necklaces. N. B. had heard that Mr. Tullos got "fresh" with girls, and she stepped back and left his office. N. B. went directly to Ms. Lewis's office and told her about this last incident. Afterwards, she talked with Ms. Smith. N. B. did not discuss the incident with her girl friends until after she had spoken with Ms. Lewis. Student T. F. T. F. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. Sometime during that school year, T. F. had a "stop order" issued against her because she had missed detention. In order to go back to class, she had to obtain a pass from Mr. Tullos, which she would take to each of her teachers. She went to Mr. Tullos's office, and, when she asked for the pass, he asked her what she would give him. T. F. took this as a "sexual gesture" because of the way he said it and the way he looked at her; she did not respond. Mr. Tullos then called her aunt for an explanation of why she missed detention and gave her the pass. During the incident, she and Mr. Tullos were alone in his office. On another occasion, Mr. Tullos caught N. B. cutting into the lunch line. He pulled her out of the line and took her ten to twenty feet away from the line. He remarked that her boyfriend must be teaching her to do "stuff like that" and told her that she wasn't supposed to have any boyfriend but him. He also asked if she would go out to dinner with him and if she was ashamed to ride in his truck. He did not specify a date or time for dinner but asked if she liked Red Lobster. She turned down the invitation and walked away. During this exchange, T. F. and Mr. Tullos were standing in the cafeteria, which was packed at the time with students eating lunch. Although Mr. Tullos was not whispering to her, he was not talking loudly, either. On another occasion, she and a girl friend were in the hall, and they asked Mr. Tullos for a quarter so they could use the telephone. He responded by asking what they were going to give him in return. They told him to keep his quarter and borrowed a quarter from a friend. T. F. had heard from other students about Mr. Tullos's behavior, but she decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. A few weeks after the incident involving T. F. related in paragraph 39 above, the incident described in paragraph 26 above occurred between her friend, Y. J., and Mr. Tullos. After she heard about this, T. F. told her aunt and Y. J. about her encounters with Mr. Tullos. She and Y. J. talked it over and decided to talk with Ms. Lewis. Student M. R. M. R. was a ninth-grade student at Glades Central during the 1992-1993 school year. M. R. was late for class many times. On one occasion during the second half of the school year, she approached Mr. Tullos for a late pass. He told her that he would give her an "unexcused" pass but that, if she gave him a hug, he would give her an "excused" pass. She refused to give him a hug, and he gave her an "unexcused" pass. She did not think anything of this incident; she just took her pass and went to class. 5/ M. R. did not report the incident, but, at some point, she spoke to Ms. Smith about it. Ms. Smith has been employed as guidance coordinator at Glades Central for the past nine years. One of her duties is to work with female students who have problems. On May 3, 1993, Y. J., S. S., and T. F. came to Ms. Smith complaining that Mr. Tullos had made improper comments to them and/or had touched them in a way that they thought was inappropriate and that made them uncomfortable. When she asked if there were any other students who had similar experiences with Mr. Tullos, she was given several names. She called these students to her office and, from them, got the names of still other students. She spent the day interviewing all of the students whose names she had been given, and she took statements from ten students who she thought had complaints which should be further investigated. At the end of the day, she telephoned the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the school board's security office to report the complaints. She also talked with Dr. Grear, the principal of Glades Central, and gave her the statements she had obtained. Dr. Grear handled the investigation from this point forward. In a performance evaluation dated May 28, 1993, Dr. Grear rated Mr. Tullos "At Expectation," commenting that he "works well with other members of the administrative staff and faculty." Mr. Tullos's behavior toward the seven students who testified at the hearing was unprofessional and inappropriate. The evidence is clear and convincing that his conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. He repeatedly committed serious offenses against students who had been given into his care, and he exposed himself to the derision of the students who had been the objects of his indecent remarks and touches. His behavior was the subject of discussion among students, and some students even claimed to have gotten special treatment because they threatened to report him. The evidence is also clear and convincing that he harassed the seven students who testified at the hearing on the basis of their sex. He made remarks to them which were explicitly or implicitly sexual in nature, and he touched several of them in ways which were improper and offensive. 6/ Mr. Tullos's conduct made several of the seven students who testified at the hearing uncomfortable and/or angry, but others either did not take him seriously or were not bothered by his behavior. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the students' scholastic endeavors were affected or that they suffered any mental or physical harm as a result of his actions. The lack of mental harm was also apparent from the demeanor of the students as they testified at the hearing. Likewise, there is no clear and convincing evidence that any of the students were exposed to embarrassment or disparagement as a result of Mr. Tullos's actions; in fact, most of the students testifying at the hearing willingly and openly discussed their experiences with their friends at school. And, while he may have tried to exploit his relationship with the seven students as the assistant principal in charge of their grade, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Tullos obtained any personal gain or advantage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Virgil Wayne Tullos guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board of Palm Beach County, in violation of section 231.28(1)(f), and of harassing students W. K, S. S., Y. J., S., N. B., T. F., and M. R. on the basis of sex, in violation of rule 6B- 1.006(3)(g) and, therefore, of section 231.28(1)(i). It is further RECOMMENDED that the following administrative sanctions be imposed: Suspension of Mr. Tullos's teaching certificate for a period of one (1) year; and, Upon reinstatement of his teaching certificate, placement of Mr. Tullos on probation for a period of three (3) years, with Mr. Tullos being required, as a condition of probation, to submit to psychological examination and to any recommended treatment through the recovery network program established in section 231.263, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher for the conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Both West Hialeah and Aventura are public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2011-12 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher assigned to West Hialeah. Respondent's teaching assignment during the 2014-2015 school year was as a teacher at Aventura. Respondent's employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), Florida Statutes, the regulations issued by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and the School Board's policies and procedures. Respondent's Prior Discipline During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was investigated for hitting an exceptional student education (ESE) student at West Hialeah. The investigation concluded that there was probable cause to charge Respondent with violating School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. As a result, a conference-for- the-record (CFR) was held on December 15, 2011, wherein OPS District Director, Dr. Brown, issued Respondent directives to: adhere to all School Board policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 3210.01, the Code of Ethics; and 5630, Corporal Punishment and the Use of Reasonable Force; refrain from contacting in person or by any other means any of the parties involved in the investigation; refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and [] conduct [herself], both in [her] employment and in the community, in a manner that reflects credit upon [herself] and the district. Respondent signed on January 3, 2012, that she was in receipt of these directives. Although the charges against Respondent relating to physical aggression against a student merited a recommendation from the School Board that Respondent be terminated, the School Board took into consideration Respondent's length of service with the School Board and the fact that she had not received any prior discipline. As such, it was recommended that Respondent be suspended for 25 workdays without pay. Respondent contested this recommendation. Following a final hearing on September 24, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Stuart M. Lerner found that Respondent used physical aggression toward an ESE student and recommended that the School Board uphold Respondent's 25-workday suspension. Ultimately, Respondent was suspended for 25 workdays without pay. The September 2011 incident was reported to the Florida Department of Education (Florida DOE), and a hearing was held on October 15, 2014, to determine whether any disciplinary measures should be taken on Respondent's educator certificate. Following that hearing, conducted by the undersigned, it was recommended to the Florida DOE that "Respondent be placed on probation for 90 days with a letter or reprimand to be placed in her certification file." The Recommended Order provided that, "[t]his penalty takes into account that Respondent's conduct, in striking the student, was inappropriate under any circumstances, but also places the conduct in perspective in relation to Respondent's otherwise incident-free teaching career." The September 17, 2014, Incident Respondent later began working as a teacher with ESE students at Aventura beginning in the 2012-2013 school year. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent worked as an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) teacher. M.C., who suffers from ASD, was a student in Respondent's class during the 2014-2015 school year. M.C. and his family are from Argentina and the 2014-2015 school year was the first year M.C. attended a public school in the United States. Initially, M.C. could not take instruction in class. Respondent worked with him to develop the skills to take instruction by demonstrating actions, repeating instruction and praising the student for doing things correctly. Respondent taught M.C. how to write his name, catch a ball, and hold a pencil. Respondent shared a classroom with fellow teacher, Ms. Stubbs. Ms. Stubbs had her own set of students with varying exceptionalities. Ms. Stubbs had six middle school students and Respondent had six elementary school students. Ms. Pollard acted as Respondent's paraprofessional, helping Respondent with her students. Additionally, Ms. Charles would assist Respondent with M.C. for a few hours each day. Respondent's planning period was during the time her students went to art once a week on Wednesday. Respondent voluntarily gave up her planning period to assist the art teacher, Ms. Garcia, with the students. Ms. Garcia worked as an art teacher at Aventura for six (6) years. On September 17, 2014, Ms. Garcia was teaching art to Respondent's students. After Ms. Garcia had provided instructions for the class, she began walking around the room while the students worked on their assignment. M.C. was seated at his desk coloring with crayons. M.C. began throwing crayons on the floor and Respondent, who had been standing behind M.C. with her hands on his shoulders, grabbed M.C.'s hands and wrists and pulled him down to the floor, causing M.C. to fall down to his knees. Respondent told M.C. to pick up the crayons in a loud tone that conveyed she was annoyed. Once Respondent had M.C. on the floor, she held M.C.'s wrists, forcing him to pick up the crayons off the floor. All the while, M.C., who is non-verbal, was making noises like he was not happy. Ms. Garcia tried to help, but Respondent did not allow her, insisting that M.C. had to clean up by himself. M.C. eventually returned to his seat and then began spitting on the floor. Once again, Respondent pulled M.C. to the floor by his wrists, causing him to land on his knees. Respondent again appeared annoyed as she was forcing M.C. to wipe up the spit. Ms. Garcia attempted once more to assist in the clean-up, but Respondent did not allow her, stating that M.C. had to clean up his own mess. Although Ms. Garcia has seen other ESE students being restrained, she has never seen a teacher treat a student like Respondent treated M.C. by forcefully pulling him to the floor. There was no indication that M.C. was going to hurt himself or other students. Although Ms. Pollard did not see the interaction between Respondent and M.C., because she was busy helping the students with their assignment, she did hear Respondent yell, "Pick it up!" in a tone loud enough to be heard over the noise of the classroom. At the end of the art class, M.C. pinched another student with ASD, K., in front of Respondent. Respondent responded by instructing K. to pinch M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was only three feet away from Respondent when she heard Respondent say this. K. is a very obedient student. When Respondent told him to pinch M.C. back, K. looked confused, shrugged his shoulders and reluctantly pinched M.C. back. Ms. Garcia was shocked by what she witnessed. She verbally intervened by telling Respondent that she would not tolerate Respondent's behavior in her classroom. Ms. Garcia admonished Respondent that the students should not be taught to retaliate against each other. Respondent just stood silent and stunned during the confrontation. Meanwhile, M.C., upset at K.'s retaliation, ran off and pinched another student, R., who retaliated by repeatedly hitting M.C. back. The situation Respondent created was total chaos. Two children, K. and R., who are otherwise well-behaved, were acting aggressively towards each other. Ms. Garcia then had to physically intervene by separating the fighting children because Respondent just stood by. Ms. Pollard, who had been outside Ms. Garcia's classroom with the rest of the class, began to wonder what was taking the other students so long. When Ms. Pollard peered back into the classroom, the expression on Ms. Garcia's face startled her. Ms. Pollard asked Ms. Garcia what was wrong, to which Ms. Garcia responded, "Do you believe she [Respondent] told K. to hit M.C.?!" Ms. Pollard looked over to Respondent, but Respondent remained silent. Ms. Garcia informed Principal Bello that she witnessed Respondent handle M.C. in an inappropriate manner and that Respondent instructed another student to pinch M.C. in retaliation. Respondent denied these allegations. Ms. Garcia did not have any issues with Respondent prior to Ms. Garcia reporting the incident to Principal Bello. After the incident, Respondent stopped coming into Ms. Garcia's classroom with her students. Respondent's Post-Incident Conduct On September 29, 2014, Mr. Bello issued Respondent a letter, directing her to refrain "from contacting any complainant(s) and/or witnesses, with the intent to interfere with the investigation of the above listed allegation." In November of 2014, M.C.'s mother, S.C., received a telephone call from Respondent on a Saturday night at around 8:00 p.m. Respondent proceeded to tell S.C. that she was going to lose her job and teaching license because of S.C.'s son, M.C. Respondent asked S.C. to have her ex-husband, M.C.'s father, write a letter and backdate it to the first day of school in August 2014. Respondent's call made S.C. feel "extremely horrible" and "guilty." S.C. did not want anyone losing their job because of her son. Subsequently, Respondent repeatedly took advantage of the fact that S.C. picked up M.C. in the classroom to talk to S.C. about the allegations. Respondent cried to S.C., telling her that M.C. had behaved well on the last day of school before the Thanksgiving break because M.C. must have known it would be Respondent's last day as his teacher. Respondent's words and actions towards S.C. made S.C. question why the school was investigating or targeting Respondent and she wanted to ask the school to stop their investigation. The effect that Respondent's words and actions had on S.C. is precisely what Petitioner tries to avoid by issuing standard directives that employees being investigated may not contact witnesses with the intent to interfere with the investigation.1/ Respondent was afforded her employee and due process rights, including the opportunity to file exceptions to the investigative report and request a superintendent's review. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, 2014, the Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings against her. Respondent claims that allegations against her are falsified, that Ms. Garcia was "coached" for reasons Respondent could not articulate, and that her co-teacher, Ms. Stubbs, is out to get her. She also believes "the principal and his agents" conspired against her. Notably, Ms. Stubbs was not the individual who reported the incident. She did not provide a statement in support of the allegations nor did she testify at the final hearing. Respondent could not identify the alleged agents of the principal. Respondent's denial of the allegations and conspiracy theory are identical to the defenses she asserted in response to her prior incident of inappropriately touching a child for which she received a 25-day suspension and probation.2/ Respondent presented no credible evidence in support of these defenses. Respondent also claims that M.C.'s father gave her verbal permission at the beginning of the school year to teach his son "life skills" and put physical limits on his son. The father did not testify, there was no corroboration, and it was denied by S.C. Even assuming this was true, it is implausible that M.C.'s father, or any parent, would envision a scenario in which his child would be pulled to the ground forcibly by his teacher, or another student would be encouraged by a teacher to physically retaliate against his child, to teach "life skills." Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner proved Respondent engaged in misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violated School Board rules 3210 and 3213.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, including Respondent's prior 25-day suspension for similar conduct (inappropriate physical contact with a student) and the seriousness of these violations, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 26th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Michael Douglas began the 1982-83 school year as a seventh grade student at South Miami Junior High School. Disciplinary measures were required on September 1, 10, 14, 17 and 29, 1982. The student refused to obey rules and instructions, and was generally incorrigible. On September 29, he threatened another student with assault. During September, school officials had several contacts with Michael's mother and his case was referred to the child study team. As a result of these conferences, he was assigned to a youth opportunity school on October 28, 1982.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner continue its placement of the student, Michael Douglas, in the Youth Opportunity School. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Dr. Leonard M. Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Lillie Mae Jordon 5920 Southwest 6th Street Miami, Florida 33143
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, as amended. If so, what action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Among these schools are Miami Central Senior High School (Central) and American Senior High School (American). Alberto Rodriguez is now, and has been for the past six years, the principal at American. As American's principal, Mr. Rodriguez has supervisory authority over the School Board employees assigned to work at the school. These employees are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with School Board Rules, including School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-5D-1.07, and 6Gx13-6A-1.331 At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. . . . At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 provided as follows: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT- PROHIBITED The administration of corporal punishment in Miami-Dade County Public Schools is strictly prohibited. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has implemented comprehensive programs for the alternative control of discipline. These programs include, but are not limited to, counseling, timeout rooms, in-school suspension centers, student, mediation and conflict resolution, parental involvement, alternative education programs, and other forms of positive reinforcement. In addition, suspensions and/or expulsions are available as administrative disciplinary actions depending of the severity of the misconduct. Procedures are in place for students to make up any work missed while on suspension, or to participate in an alternative program if recommended for expulsion.[2] Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since 1994. He has a professional service contract of employment with School Board. From 1994 through 2000, Respondent was assigned to Central, where he taught emotionally disturbed and severely emotionally disturbed students. He had an unblemished disciplinary and performance record at Central. Respondent was reassigned from Central to American, where he remained until August of 2001, when he was "placed in an alternative work assignment at Region I" pending the disposition of charges against him. At American, Respondent taught emotionally handicapped (EH) students. Among the students in his classes were O. A., V. S., C. H., T. S., R. D., and A. D. At all times material to the instant case, Nanci Clayton also taught EH students at American.3 She had some of the same students in her classes that Respondent had in his. At the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year, Ms. Clayton and Respondent had paraprofessionals in their classrooms. The paraprofessionals, however, were removed from their classrooms after the first grading period. Ms. Clayton's and Respondent's classrooms were located in one "very large [room] divided in half [by a makeshift partial partition4] to make two classrooms."5 This partial partition consisted of bookcases, a blackboard, filing cabinets, and, at times, a table. To enter and exit Respondent's classroom, it was necessary to pass through Ms. Clayton's classroom, where the door to the hallway was located. There was no direct access to the hallway from Respondent's classroom. Ms. Clayton's desk was located immediately to the left of the door as one walked into her classroom from the hallway. Students leaving Respondent's classroom had to pass by Ms. Clayton's desk to get to the hallway. The "divided room" that Ms. Clayton and Respondent shared had a "phone line," but no School Board-supplied telephone. Ms. Clayton and Respondent had to supply their own telephone. "Sometimes [the telephone] would work, sometimes it wouldn't work." There was no "emergency" or "call" button in the room. There were occasions when Ms. Clayton and Respondent "conduct[ed] [their] lessons simultaneously in this divided room."6 Things said in one of the classrooms could, at times, be heard in the other classroom. It is not uncommon for EH students to have mood swings, to become easily frustrated and angered, to be verbally and physically aggressive, to engage in off-task behavior, and to defy authority. Controlling the behavior of these students in the classroom presents a special challenge. As EH teachers at American, Ms. Clayton and Respondent were faced with this challenge. It was their responsibility to deal with the behavioral problems exhibited by their students during the course of the school day while the students were under their supervision. American had a Behavior Management Teacher, David Kucharsky, to assist the school's EH teachers in dealing with serious or chronic behavioral problems. There were far fewer instances of disruptive student behavior in Ms. Clayton's classroom than in Respondent's. While in Respondent's class, some students would do such things as throw books and turn the lights off. Ms. Clayton, however, would not "have the same kind of problems" with these students when she was teaching them. Ms. Clayton "made recommendations" to Respondent to help him better control the behavior of students in his classes. As a teacher at American, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD, effective July 1, 1999, through June 20, 2002 (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employer rights." Section 1 of Article V provided, in part, that the School Board had the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article XXI of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 2 of Article XXI provided, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " Article VIII of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of a "safe learning environment." "Student discipline" was discussed in Section 1 of Article VIII, which provided, in part, as follows: Section 1. Student Discipline A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently, and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Rules governing discipline are set forth in the Code of Student Conduct, School Board Rules, and Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment and, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. * * * D. The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alternatives for dealing with student behavior. The involvement of school-site personnel in developing such alternatives is critical to their potential for success. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive prior to or upon the student's return to the classroom, a copy of the Student Case Management Form (SCAM) describing corrective action(s) taken. . . . "Physical restraint" and its use, in certain circumstances, on students receiving exceptional student education services was discussed in Section 3 of Article VIII, which provided as follows: Section 3. Physical Restraint There are instances where exceptional students exhibit behaviors that are disruptive to the learning environment and pose a threat to the safety of persons or property. Some exceptional students because of the nature of their disability, may, on occasion, experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/others, or from causing damage to property. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. For students who exhibit such behaviors, the use of physical restraint procedures shall be discussed as part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) development and review process. A recommendation for the use of Board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the Multi-Disciplinary Team (M-Team) and shall be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. When parents or surrogates are not present at the IEP meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when an explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk to persons or property, the use of physical restraint technique is authorized for such circumstances. Subject to available funding, the Board shall provide for the training of instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques, as well as strategies for prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are, by reference, incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accordance with the training provided and these guidelines, shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08.[7] The appropriate use of these procedures shall not constitute a violation of the corporal punishment policy (Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07). Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized the implementation of specific physical restraint procedures to be used in Exceptional Student Education programs when a student's IEP documents the potential need for their use. These procedures include, but are not limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. Specific physical restraint procedures may also be approved for use with other specific student populations, upon mutual agreement of the parties and would be reviewed on an annual basis. The use of physical restraint must be documented as part of the SCM system. Instructional or support staff who utilize physical restraint techniques shall complete the SCM Student Services Form to record student case information regarding each incident. Directions shall be provided to instructional and support staff to assist them in completing the appropriate form. At all times material to the instant case, the Individualized Education Program for each of the students in Respondent's classes "document[ed] the potential need for the[] use" of the School Board-approved "physical restraint techniques" referenced in Section 3 of Article VIII of the UTD Contract. Respondent received training in 1994 in the use of these techniques. At another in-service training session that he attended when he was teaching at Central, the head of the school's program for emotionally disturbed and severely emotionally disturbed students spoke about the "preventative strategies" of "planned ignoring" and "proximity control" and gave to the attendees, including Respondent, a handout, which stated the following about these "preventative strategies": Planned Ignoring Inappropriate behavior is ignored and not reinforced by staff by not reacting or responding to specific disruptive activity of a student in anticipation that the inappropriate behavior will extinguish or subside without further [sic]. The second part of this intervention is to reinforce positively acceptable behavior in anticipation that this behavior will occur more frequently. Proximity Control This intervention takes advantage of the positive effect of using a nonverbal communication such as gestures, looks, or body postures to decrease inappropriate classroom behavior. As an additional measure, physical contact in the form of a hand on the student's shoulder or a squeeze of an arm, can be very supportive to the student, yet convey the message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated. Respondent employed these "preventative strategies" at Central and was never disciplined for doing so. At American, Respondent was involved in several incidents in which he used physical force against students. On February 28, 2001, Respondent was at his desk teaching a class when one of the students in the class, V. S., got out of his seat and started "knocking on the T.V." that was in the classroom. V. S. was a "very large student" who, on a previous occasion, had "threatened to take [Respondent's] head and push it through a plate-glass window" and, on other occasions, had told Respondent: We are going to get you white man. We are going to make you quit. We are going to get you fired.[8] Respondent told V. S. to take his seat. V. S. refused. Instead, he sat down on Respondent's desk and "leaned over toward [Respondent]," positioning his face "about a foot" from Respondent's. V. S. was "glaring down at [Respondent]" and had a "tight-lipped grin" on his face. This made Respondent feel "a little edgy." After directing V. S. to "get off [the] desk" and receiving "no response," Respondent (rather than getting up from his seat and walking away from V. S.) "reached out and gave [V. S.'s] arm a shake" in order "to get [V. S.'s] attention."9 Respondent obtained the result he desired. V. S. got off the desk; but he did not do so quietly. V. S. yelled profanities at Respondent and threatened to "kill" Respondent if Respondent ever touched him again. Prior to Respondent shaking his arm, V. S. had not made, during the incident, any verbal threats against Respondent. The incident was reported to the administration and the matter was investigated. Respondent, V. S., and another student, C. H., who witnessed the incident, gave written statements that Mr. Rodriguez reviewed. On March 15, 2001, after reviewing the statements, Mr. Rodriguez held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent. Mr. Rodriguez subsequently prepared (on March 21, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on that same date) a memorandum, in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: The following is a summary of the conference-for-the-record on Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. in this administrator's office. Present at the conference were Mark Soffian, assistant principal; Karen Robinson, assistant principal; Jimmy Jones, UTD Representative; yourself and this administrator. The purpose of the conference was to address the following: -Miami-Dade County School Board Police Case #F-09343. -Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. -School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). -School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). -Review of the record. -Future employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. This administrator began the conference by reviewing Case #F-09343. This administrator read your statement and the statements of the students alleging battery on a student. This administrator asked you if you had any comments in reference to the incident. You stated that you had to write up everyone in class, because students were turning off the lights and throwing books in the dark despite repeated warnings. You characterized this student behavior as "organized disruption." You further stated that another student was tormenting a classmate who shrieked out in pain, ran out of class and then was dragged back in by the same student. You described that another student was banging on the television and you had to write him up. You said you did not push [V. S.] (victim-I.D. #427561) but rather he leaped off the desk, shouted a tirade of curses at you and then left class. You indicated that you did not push because you were unable to move an 18 year old who is 260 pounds.[10] This administrator asked if you ever left your class unsupervised. You stated, "Yes, from time to time." This administrator cautioned you that one of your professional responsibilities is never to leave your students unsupervised. Additionally, the fact that you described the numerous classroom discipline problems, it is of the utmost importance that your students remain supervised at all times. This administrator reviewed with you the Code of Ethics and Principles of . . . Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. This administrator specified certain areas of the Code of Ethics in which you were in violation. This administrator asked you to respond and you nodded your head in the affirmative. This administrator reviewed with you Miami- Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). You were asked if you understood and you responded "Yes." This administrator reviewed with you Miami- Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). This administrator reminded you that you are expected to conduct yourself, both in your employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon yourself and the school system. You were asked to respond and you stated "I understand." This administrator conducted a review of the record. There was another incident involving the use of improper force and disciplinary means against a student that was cited on November 11, 2000. The case (F-03631) was never pursued; however, this administrator cautioned you that these past episodes demonstrate use of poor judgment on your part. This administrator informed you that repeated offenses would result in further disciplinary actions that will negatively impact your future employment with Miami- Dade County Public Schools. This administrator then asked if you had any further comments or statements for the record. You requested that a handout on "preventative strategies" and Florida Statute Chapter 232.27[11] be included as part of the written summary. You further stated that you didn't claim to be perfect and there was room for improvement. You stated that teaching six periods made it difficult to do the job effectively. This administrator asked if you wanted to give up the sixth period supplement since if was your choice to take on that added teaching responsibility for remuneration. You stated that you did not want to give up the money. This administrator advised that you cannot use the sixth period day as an excuse, and if it is a hardship where you are unable to perform your prescribed duties th[e]n you need to let this administrator know. Additionally, this administrator informed you that writing referrals to exclude seven or eight students in your Exceptional Education class was unacceptable. This administrator recommended for you to acquire additional training in dealing with Emotional Handicapped students. Seeking alternative means of discipline in lieu of suspension and exclusion from class will be necessary. This administrator provided you with Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs to assist you in managing your classroom and providing appropriate strategies in handling Exceptional Education students.[12] This administrator issued you the following directives: -Refrain from using any physical means to enforce student discipline. -Adhere to Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited). -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct). -Refrain from leaving students in the classroom unsupervised. In closing, this administrator informed you that failure to comply with these directives and recurrences of this type will result in further disciplinary action which will adversely affect your future employment status. This administrator stated that he would be available to provide[] you any assistance that you may require. In conclusion, you are apprised of your right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. Attached to the memorandum were copies of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (which are found in Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006, Florida Administrative Code), School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D- 1.07, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, the handout on "preventative strategies" that Respondent had received at Central, and the cover page, as well as pages 119 and 121, of the Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs referenced in the memorandum. Page 121 of the Miami-Dade County School Board Manual of Procedures for Special Programs manual read as follows: Some exceptional students because of the nature of the disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. For students who exhibit such behaviors, the use of physical restraint procedures shall be discussed as part of the IEP development and review process. A recommendation for the use of Board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the Multidisciplinary Team (M-Team) and shall be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. When parents or surrogates are not present at the IEP meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when an explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk of persons or property, the use of physical restraint techniques is authorized for such circumstances. The School Board shall provide for the training of the appropriate instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques, as well as strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are available at school sites. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accordance with the training provided, these guidelines shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08. The appropriate use of these procedures[13] On May 2, 2001, Respondent again used non-approved "physical means to enforce student discipline," notwithstanding the reasonable directive that he had been given by Mr. Rodriguez at the March 15, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record that he "refrain" from engaging in such conduct. That day, students in Respondent's third period class, including T. S., R. D., and O. A., were scheduled to take the Scholastic Reading Inventory Test (SRI). The SRI is a standardized test designed to measure students' reading skills. The results of the test are "used to guide classroom instruction, so it is considered [to be a] low- stakes" test. Respondent had received in-service training, prior to May 2, 2001, on how to administer the SRI. It was emphasized during the training that, for the SRI "to be an effective test, [it had to] be protected from [pre-test administration] dissemination" and that it was important for teachers administering the test to make sure their students returned all test materials "at the end of the test period" and did not leave the test site with these materials. At the training, Respondent was given a document which contained standards for "test administration and test security." These standards provided, in part, as follows: STANDARD: PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TESTING PROGRAM AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL . . . . The test administrator is responsible for directing and conducting the testing session(s) as specified in the administration manual or program guide, strictly adhering to test directions, monitoring students during testing, and maintaining the security of test materials assigned to him/her. . . . STANDARD: TEST SECURITY PROCEDURES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN OF TEST MATERIALS Each principal or designee is responsible for the receipt, inventory, secure storage, distribution, collection, and return of all test booklets and test-related material assigned to that school, according to the directions and instructions specified in the administration manuals or program guides. The principal or designee must notify the Division of Student Assessment and Educational Testing immediately if any discrepancies are noted in the counts, or if any materials are missing. The principal or designee must advise all teachers of the rules relating to test security and of the importance of complete adherence to them. Adherence to these test security procedures for the distribution and return of test materials, before, during, and after testing will ensure that: students do not have access to any of the material prior to the actual exam time or following it; professional staff have access to the test booklets, test folders, questions, and/or reading passages only at the time necessary for administration purposes; test booklets and test materials are returned to the test chairperson at the end of each testing session; and nothing has occurred in the school to allow unauthorized access to any of the test materials at any time. . . . STANDARD: MAINTAINING STANDARDIZATION AND TEST SECURITY DURING TEST ADMINISTRATION . . . . Students must have access to test booklets, test folders (i.e., test questions) ONLY during the actual administration of the test. Test materials must be secured at all times. Materials must be handed directly to and collected from each student one at a time. If a student needs to leave the test room, his/her materials must be collected and held upon the student's return[;] the test administrator must ensure that the student receives only his/her own test materials. Test administrators and proctors must actively monitor students during the entire testing period by walking around the room, to ensure compliance with test directions and to prevent cheating. Any irregularities or problems with the test administration must be promptly reported to the test chairperson, the school-site administrator, and district staff. . . . Test administrators, proctors, and any other school or district staff involved in test administration are required to adhere to guidelines laid out in the Florida Test Security Statute, Section 228.301[14] and the FDOE State Board of Education Administration Rule 6A-10.042, Maintenance of Test Security,[15] as well as district policy and board rule regarding test security. Violations of test security provisions shall be subject to penalties as provided in statute and FDOE State Board of Education Administrative Rules. . . . After Respondent handed out the test materials to the students in his third period class on May 2, 2001, and provided them with instructions regarding the test, T. S., who was seated in the back row of the classroom, asked Respondent several questions about the test. Dissatisfied with Respondent's responses, T. S. got out of his seat and, with the test booklet and answer sheet in hand, headed towards Ms. Clayton's classroom to see if she could provide him with the information that he was seeking about the test. On a regular basis, T. S. would leave Respondent's classroom, without permission, before the end of the period and go into the hallway. Concerned that T. S. would go out into hallway with the test materials, Respondent followed T. S. T. S. was near the partial partition dividing Respondent's and Ms. Clayton's classrooms, facing Ms. Clayton, when Respondent caught up to T. S. T. S. started to ask Ms. Clayton a question, when he was interrupted by Respondent, who instructed T. S. to give him the test materials. Respondent had positioned himself so that he was in front of T. S. and "close enough to touch" him. T. S. did not hand over the test materials to Respondent; instead, he asked Respondent "to give him some space." Respondent, however, held his ground and again "asked for the test materials back." T. S. refused to return the test materials to Respondent, telling Respondent he was "just asking a question." Respondent then started to reach for the test materials in an effort to grab them out of T. S.'s hand. T. S. reacted by moving the hand in which he was holding the test materials away from Respondent so that Respondent would not be able to take the materials from him. During the scuffle, Respondent grabbed ahold of T. S.'s shirt and "pulled" it. He also bumped into T. S. as he was reaching for the test materials in T. S's hand. Upset that Respondent was "over [him], touching [him]," T. S. ripped up the test materials and threw the pieces at Respondent. He was going to hit Respondent, but was subdued by a classmate, R. D. He then walked out the door and into the hallway. Respondent returned to his classroom and went back to his desk. He was followed by R. D., who told Respondent that he "need[ed] to chill out." While talking to Respondent, R. D. put his hands on Respondent's desk. Respondent told R. D., "get your hands off my desk." Using his hand, Respondent then forcibly moved R. D.'s hands off the desk. What occurred during Respondent's third period class on May 2, 2001, was reported to the administration and the matter was investigated. Written statements from Respondent, Ms. Clayton, and T. S., as well as other students, were collected and reviewed as part of the investigation. Mr. Rodriguez scheduled a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent for June 11, 2001. Before the conference was held, Respondent was involved in yet another incident in which he used physical force against a student in his class. The student on this occasion was A. D., and the incident occurred on June 7, 2001, at around 9:30 a.m. or 9:45 a. m., near the end of the first (two hour) class period of the school day. A. D. had engaged in disruptive behavior in Respondent's classroom before walking out of the classroom and into the hallway towards the end of the period. As A. D. was leaving, Respondent told him, "If you leave before the bell rings, I am not letting you back in this time." (This was not the first time that A. D. had walked out of Respondent's class before the period was over.) Deanna Lipschutz, a clerical employee assigned to American's exceptional student education department, saw A. D. in the hallway. A. D. was "walking around in circles," but he was not "out of control." Ms. Lipschutz approached A. D. and, after engaging in a brief conversation with him, escorted him back to Respondent's classroom. The door to the classroom was closed. Ms. Lipschutz knocked on the door. When Respondent opened the door, Ms. Lipschutz told him that A. D. "would like to come back in class." Respondent indicated that he would not let R. D. return. Respondent then took his hands, placed them on A. D.'s shoulders, and gave A. D. a "little push." A. D. stumbled backwards. There was a wall behind A. D. that A. D. nearly made contact with as he was stumbling backwards. After pushing A. D. away from the doorway, Respondent went back inside the classroom and closed the door. Respondent's use of physical force against A. D. on June 7, 2001, was reported to the administration and an investigation of the matter was commenced. This was the last of the incidents (specified in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges, as amended) involving Respondent's use of physical force against a student. Respondent's use of physical force in each of these incidents (the February 28, 2001, incident with V. S.; the May 2, 2001, incidents with T. S. and R. D.; and the June 7, 2001, incident with A. D.) was contrary to School Board policy and unauthorized and, moreover, evinced poor judgment and a lack of adequate concern for the physical well-being of the EH student involved in the incident. In none of these incidents was the physical force Respondent used reasonably necessary to prevent physical harm to himself, the student involved in the incident, or anyone else, or to prevent the destruction or serious damage of property. Respondent did not use School Board-approved "physical restraint techniques" (which are referenced in Section 3 of Article VIII of the UTD Contract) in any of these incidents. Rather, he used physical methods that were more likely to provoke, than deter, aggressive student behavior and, in so doing, created conditions harmful to the exceptional education students in his charge. Furthermore, Respondent's use of these methods in the incidents involving T. S., R. D., and A. D. was in defiance of directives he had been given by Mr. Rodriguez during the March 15, 2001, Conference-for-the-Record. It is true that Respondent did not have an easy teaching assignment. He had students in his class who, because of their disability, made teaching quite difficult. As a certified EH teacher, however, Respondent should have been equipped to deal with these students' disruptive behavior without resorting to the use of unauthorized physical force. Respondent's repeated use of such force was so serious as to impair his effectiveness as an EH teacher. The Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent that Mr. Rodriguez had scheduled for June 11, 2001, was held as scheduled on that date. Mr. Rodriguez subsequently prepared (on June 13, 2001) and furnished to Respondent (on that same date) a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: The following is a summary of the conference-for-the-record on Monday, June 11, 2001, at 8:00 a.m. in this administrator's office. Present at the conference were: Karen Robinson, assistant principal; Mark Soffian, assistant principal; Jimmy Jones, UTD Representative; Sherri Greenberg, UTD Bargaining Agent Representative, yourself and this administrator. The purpose of the conference was to address the following: -Miami-Dade County School Board Police Case #F13868 (Substantiated) -Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida -School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited) -School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct) -Review of the record -Future employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools This administrator began the conference by reviewing written statements from several students, a teacher and yourself in the School Board Case #F13868. This administrator informed you that your actions were in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 of using corporal punishment and inappropriate physical restraint as a means of disciplining your students. This administrator asked if you had a response to these statements. You stated that you had seven years of university training and a master's in SED and you had a perfect record of no incidents at Miami Central High School. You requested to read a letter from Clifford Golden, School Psychologist, that you wished to be included in the record's summary. Additionally, you stated that "I had no problems until I came to American and it has been a difficult situation. When I first got here, you told me at a staff meeting about an ongoing LED conspiracy." This administrator corrected you about the contents of my statement as saying that "there was never a mention of a conspiracy; however, I was concerned with the quality of instructional delivery in the Exceptional Education department." You continued stating that your colleagues were less than helpful, and that no one came to your class, and that Mr. Kucharsky, Behavior Management Teacher, did not show consistent discipline. This administrator informed you that when he visited you classroom during second period, he observed on several occasions that on one side of the room with another teacher there were students learning; however, on your side there was bedlam. Dr. Soffian indicated when he visited your class on three occasions, he observed your room to be in disarray, with books on the floor, desks overturned and students not engaged in any productive activity. Mr. Jones also indicated upon his visitation, he observed that your kids were "out of control." You responded that "I have frequent misbehavior from that class but no one provided any consequences when I wrote them up." This administrator then reviewed with you the State Board of Education Rule, Code of Ethics (6B-1.001, 6B-1.006). This administrator read to you that your obligation to the student requires that "you shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning, to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety." This administrator reminded that this is the second time he is issuing you this material and as a professional teacher you are obligated to comply with this code. You responded by saying you disagreed with the statement of using corporal punishment and that due to the classroom not having ventilation and being an old chorus room exacerbates the problem. This administrator reviewed your record, citing a pattern of putting your hands on students. This administrator reviewed with you two other incidents of unnecessary physical contact of your students (Miami- Dade County Police Cases #F03631 & F09343). This administrator read to you Part III, page 121, from the handout of Special Programs and Procedures for Exceptional Students (6Gx13-6A-1.331): "Some exceptional students because of the nature of the disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restrain[t] is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property." This administrator stated that your actions were not justified because the student was not doing any of the above. You responded that you disagreed with the findings. You felt that the student leaving with the test booklet caused you to physically intervene and you interpreted this action as preventing property damage. You further commented that you were a seasoned professional and that you have never hurt a student in your entire professional career. In the other cases, you stated that you were the victim and sometimes it is necessary to intervene to protect their health and safety. This administrator referred you to the District's Support Agency Program. This administrator informed you that this supervisory referral is strictly voluntary and that you will be contacted by that office. You stated that you certainly would pursue this. This administrator reviewed with you your Annual Evaluation for the 2000-2001 school year. This administrator explained that Categories I-VI were acceptable; however, Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, was unacceptable.[16] This administrator issued you and explained the prescription and the unacceptable Annual Evaluation. This administrator also explained to you that this prescriptive status would freeze your salary, revoke your transfer request, and exclude you from summer employment. You asked if your salary would be retroactive and if you would be able to transfer after the prescription date. This administrator informed you that after you have met your prescription requirement then you would be free to transfer and your salary will be reinstated and retroactive to the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year. This administrator asked if anyone had any other questions. Ms. Sherrie Greenberg, UTD representative, suggested that you receive training in physical restraint the next time it is offered. This administrator agreed with that suggestion as soon as a class opens. Ms. Greenberg also suggested to you that the District's Emotionally Handicapped supervisor visit your classroom at the beginning of the school year and provide assistance as needed. This administrator agreed with this suggestion of any additional support to improve classroom management. This administrator reminded you that per your request, your six period schedule during this second period class was changed to a five-period day. This administrator issued you the following directives: -Refrain from using any physical means to enforce student discipline, particularly if the student(s)' or your safety [is] not endangered and/or damage of property is not imminent -Adhere to Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 (Corporal Punishment-Prohibited) -Adhere to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Employee Conduct) In closing, this administrator informed you that this is the second time a conference- for-the-record has been held with you concerning the same issues. Due to your failures to comply with the previous directives, this administrator deemed this behavior as insubordination. This administrator indicated that continued failure to comply with these directives and recurrences of this type would result in further disciplinary action which will adversely affect your future employment status. This administrator stated that he would be available to provide you any assistance that you may require. In conclusion, you are apprised of your right to append, clarify, or explain any information recorded in this conference by this summary. The "prescription" that Mr. Rodriguez issued for Respondent indicated that Respondent would be in "prescriptive status" from August 27, 2001, through November 1, 2001. Respondent, however, did not return to the classroom during the 2001-2002 school year. Shortly before the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year, Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, conducted a Conference-for- the-Record with Respondent, at which she discussed Respondent's use of physical force against students at American, including the June 7, 2001, incident with A. D., and his future employment with the School Board. Dr. O'Donnell subsequently prepared (on August 27, 2001) and mailed to Respondent (on August 28, 2001) a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In those portions of the memorandum addressing the "action taken" and the "action to be taken," Dr. O'Donnell wrote the following: Action Taken In consideration of this incident and conference data, you were placed in an alternate work assignment at Region I until disposition of the charges are determined . You were advised of the availability of services from the District's referral agency. You were also provided the option to resign your position with Miami-Dade County Public Schools which you declined at this time. Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated upon your return to the worksite to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit and to the services provided to students. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards. Refrain from using physical means to effect discipline. Adhere to all School Board Rules and the Code of Ethics. Supervise assigned students at all times. During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; 6Gx13-5D- 1.07 Corporal Punishment-Prohibited; and Chapter 6B-1.0[0]1(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. You were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely [a]ffects this level of professionalism. You were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. You were advised to keep the information presented in this conference confidential and not discuss this with students or staff. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented at this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Superintendent of Region I, and the Principal of American Senior High School. All investigative data will be transmitted to Professional Practices Services (PPS), Florida Department of Education, for review and possible licensure action by the Education Practices Commission (EPC). Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of legal review with the endorsement by the Region Superintendent will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include suspension or dismissal. A determination was made that Respondent "be recommended for dismissal for the following charges: Just cause, including but not limited to: misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07 Corporal Punishment-Prohibited." On September 25, 2001, Dr. O'Donnell held a Conference-for-the-Record with Respondent to discuss this recommendation. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board took action to "suspend [Respondent] and initiate dismissal proceedings against [him] from all employment by the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, effective the close of the workday, October 24, 2001, for just cause, including but not limited to: misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment-Prohibited."17
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating his employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of August, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent Jimmy Buoy has been employed by the School Board of Dade County as a School Resource Specialist, a non-instructional employee, at Madison Junior High School in Miami, Florida. He was hired for that position in January, 1980, by a Mr. Stergen, who was then the principal of Madison Junior High School. His duties at that time included maintaining the security of the students and school premises at Madison Junior High School, supervising the school monitors, enforcing school board policies and Madison Junior High School regulations, enforcing the school's dress code with reasonable force if necessary, and administering corporal punishment. In November 1982, Thelma Davis became the principal at Madison Junior High School. Although she took away Respondent's authority to administer corporal punishment, the remainder of Respondent's duties remained the same. Among his other duties, he continued to have the authority to enforce the school's dress code and the authority to use reasonable force in enforcing that dress code. In August 1984, a reorganization resulted in the school resource specialists being organizationally located within the special investigative unit of the school system. Pursuant thereto, area supervisors gained authority and control over school resource specialists at schools within each area however, the principals maintained their individual authority and supervision over the school resource specialist(s) employed at their schools. whether the principal's supervisory control over the school resource specialist was joint, concurrent, or "line supervision" with the area supervisor, the job description issued at the time for school resource specialists specified that the school resource specialist, among other duties, "performs other safe school activities as assigned by the principal." On three occasions prior to April 26, 1985, Tracy Merchison, a student at Madison Junior High School, had a hat in his possession while on school premises, a violation of the school's dress code. Respondent confiscated Tracy's hat on each of those occasions in accordance with his long-standing procedures for doing so: Respondent returned the hat to the student at the end of the school day if it was the student's first offense; Respondent retained the hat in his possession until the end of the school year if it was the student's second or subsequent offense. The student could regain possession of his hat prior to the end of the school year, however, if the student's parent made contact with the Respondent. Respondent used the opportunity of such parental contact to advise the parent regarding the school's dress code and to enlist the parent's support in obtaining that student's compliance with the dress code. Tracy's mother had been so contacted, and Tracy's hats had been returned to him, the last hat being returned to him a day or two before April 26, 1985. On April 26, 1985, Respondent observed Tracy Merchison outside the school library with a hat in his hand, the same hat that had just been returned to him after being confiscated for its appearance on the school grounds. Respondent approached Tracy and asked Tracy for his hat. Tracy refused to give Respondent his hat. Respondent repeatedly requested the hat, and Tracy repeatedly refused. After several requests, Respondent reached for the hat, and Tracy started switching the hat back and forth between his hands behind his back to keep it away from Respondent. Respondent continued to request the hat while reaching for it still hoping that Tracy would voluntarily and calmly relinquish it. Finally, Respondent grabbed one of Tracy's arms to hold it still and took the hat from Tracy's hands with his other hand. As Respondent then stepped away from Tracy, Tracy reached out with both of his hands and shoved Respondent in the chest pushing Respondent backward. Respondent grabbed the front of Tracy's shirt with both of his hands and pushed Tracy against the wall. Respondent spoke to Tracy telling him essentially to control himself so he would not get hurt and to stop showing off for his friends. Respondent then released his hold on Tracy. Tracy started walking away from Respondent but started cursing and threatening Respondent. Respondent said "Fine, Tracy. Fine, but I have the hat." Tracy came back to Respondent and started pushing against Respondent attempting to get his hat back from Respondent. As Tracy continued to lean against and shove Respondent, Respondent again grabbed Tracy and shoved him back against the wall. After he shoved Tracy into the wall, he then pushed Tracy against a pole a few feet away from the wall, and the momentum forced Tracy's head to move backward hitting the pole. Respondent released Tracy, and Tracy ran into the attendance office yelling, using profanity, and threatening Respondent with physical harm. Tracy grabbed a stick with a nail on one end of it which is used for picking up papers from the ground and started out of the office still yelling that he was going to "get" Respondent. He was restrained, however, by Principal Davis and Assistant Principal Thompson, and the stick was taken from him. Tracy then grabbed a stapler in his continuing attempt to "get" Respondent, and Principal Davis wrestled the stapler away from him. Tracy tried to again get the stick with the nail in it but was again restrained by the administrative personnel. Respondent at that point came into the office, told Principal Davis what had transpired, and left the office to break up a fight on the physical education field. Since Tracy failed to calm down, he was not permitted to leave school by himself. Rather, Principal Davis, after being unable to contact Tracy's parents, had someone drive Tracy home. No other disciplinary action has been taken by Petitioner against Respondent prior to or subsequent to the incident in question, and Respondent continues to enforce the dress code at Madison Junior High School in accordance with his normal procedures. Respondent continues to have authority to enforce the dress code at Madison Junior High School.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent Jimmy Buoy not guilty of the allegations contained in the Formal Notice of Charges filed against him and awarding full back pay and benefits for the period of time that he was suspended from his employment. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent. School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire. Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Dan J. Bradley, Esquire 2950 S.W. 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
