The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, for alleged sale of marijuana, as set forth in Petition, dated May 11, 1979. The parties stipulated to the expected testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, and Respondent did not call any witnesses at the hearing. The parties further stipulated to the admission of Petitioner's Exhibits 1-5 and to Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1. This is an administrative proceeding whereby the Petitioner seeks to take adverse action concerning the teaching certificate of the Respondent based on an allegation the Respondent sold marijuana to a police officer on September 1, 1978. The matter was reported by the Superintendent, Polk County Public Schools, to Petitioner by letter of February 21, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Petition herein was thereafter filed pursuant to directions of the State Commissioner of Education who on May 11, 1979, found probable cause to justify disciplinary action under the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Respondent requested an administrative hearing by Answer, dated May 22, 1979. Respondent filed a prehearing Motion to Strike the Petition on the grounds that the Polk County Superintendent improperly referred the matter to Petitioner on the basis of Respondent's nolo contendere plea in a criminal proceeding, and had suspended her from employment without an evidentiary hearing. The motion further alleged that Petitioner based its probable cause finding upon hearsay evidence and that it has no authority to make a finding of criminal guilt without a judicial adjudication of the same. Respondent's Motion is denied. Petitioner's Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes procedures for revoking or suspending certificates. It provides, inter alia, that when a superintendent has "cause to believe" that a certificate holder is "guilty of any offense" for which the penalty is revocation or suspension, it is his duty to file a "signed report" with any supporting documentation with Petitioner. Such a report merely triggers an investigation by Petitioner's staff for consideration by its Executive Committee and ultimate finding of probable cause by the Commissioner of Education. All of these procedures are preliminary in nature. No definitive action can be taken against a certificate holder and no final adverse action may be taken without an opportunity for an adversary hearing. The cases cited by Respondent in support of the notion deal with evidentiary standards for the issuance of final orders and do not relate to such preliminary matters. Petitioner observed the requirements of its rules procedurally in this case.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Judy A. Cain holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 339186, Post Graduate Rank II, valid through June 30, 1983, covering the areas of English and junior college. She was employed in the public schools of Polk County at Wahneta Elementary School as a teacher in September, 1978. (Stipulation) During the evening of September 1, 1978, a police officer of the City of Dundee, Florida, who was working in an undercover capacity, had a conversation with a woman later identified as Respondent and another woman named "Candy" at Walker's Bar in Dundee. They told the officer that they were going to buy a "bag" and get "high." The officer asked if they knew where he could pick up a "bag," and Respondent told him that she would have to have money to get it herself. The officer gave Respondent $20.00 and the two women left the establishment. They returned a short time later, and the woman known as Candy took a plastic bag containing a brownish vegetable matter from her purse and both women stated that it was "dynamite dope." Thereafter, laboratory tests established that the bag contained 18 grams of marijuana. (Stipulated testimony of Castro, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On October 17, 1978, Respondent was arrested for the offense of sale of marijuana. On February 8, 1979, upon Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to sale and possession of a controlled substance, in the Polk County Circuit Court, an order was issued by the Court withholding adjudication of guilt and placing the Respondent on probation for a period of three years. Respondent was dismissed from employment by the School Board of Polk County on May 21, 1979, for immorality based on the sale of marijuana. Evidence concerning the foregoing disposition of judicial and school board proceedings was received at the hearing upon stipulation of the parties, but will not be considered herein for purposes of determining grounds for disciplinary action under Section 231.28, F.S. (Stipulated testimony of Castro, Wilson, Petitioner's Exhibits 1- 2, 5) In the opinion of Respondent's former principal, the Polk County School Board Director of Employee Relations, the Chairman of the School Board, and several parents, a teacher who commits the offense of sale of marijuana would thereby set an improper example for students and seriously reduce the teacher's effectiveness as an employee of the school system. (Stipulated testimony of Miles, S. Wilson, Qualls, D. Wilson, Aggelis, supplemented by Petitioner's Exhibit 4) During the school year 1975-76 in the Polk County School System, Respondent received a "satisfactory" rating on her annual teacher assessment report. She received the highest rating of "good" during the 1976-77 school year, and a "satisfactory" rating for the 1977-78 year. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wallace L. Storey Post Office Box 796 Bartow, Florida 33830 Hugh Ingram, Administrator Professional Practices Council 319 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's conduct constitutes just cause for her dismissal from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ("Petitioner" or "School Board") is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Polk County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4, subsection (b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Rosalinda Morales (Respondent) has been employed by the School Board for nine years and, concerning the matters at issue in this hearing, was a classroom teacher at Inwood Elementary School in Winter Haven, Florida. She was employed pursuant to terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Inwood Principal Amy Heiser-Meyers (the "Principal") issued a letter of concern to Respondent on September 28, 2011, in which she reminded Respondent of the importance of timely confirming her students' attendance each day. The Principal provided written confirmation of a verbal warning to Respondent by letter dated June 7, 2012, concerning Respondent's failure to advise the school she would be absent from work. The Principal provided written confirmation by letter dated November 27, 2012, of a second verbal warning for Respondent's failure to advise the school that she would not be present and for arriving late at work on another occasion. The Principal issued a written reprimand, following a conference with Respondent, by letter dated February 13, 2013. The written reprimand was the result of Respondent having failed to follow specific instructions and not properly handling student documentation. The Principal issued Respondent a second written reprimand by letter dated February 15, 2013, following a conference resulting from Respondent having submitted attendance records indicating that a student was present in class when, in fact, the student was absent. By letter dated February 28, 2013, the Principal requested that Superintendent John Stewart suspend Respondent without pay for several incidences of ongoing misconduct. These included Respondent's use of inappropriate and disparaging student behavior techniques; Respondent being unaware that two kindergarten students had walked out of her class without permission; and Respondent's repeated use of obscenities and disparaging comments regarding staff members while present at the school. Dennis F. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, issued a letter dated March 4, 2013, giving Respondent a three-day suspension without pay as a result of this ongoing misconduct. On July 10, 2013, the Principal wrote Superintendent Kathryn LeRoy again requesting a suspension without pay for Respondent as the result of Respondent's continued, ongoing misconduct in a number of incidences set forth in that letter involving failure to follow established school protocol, absence from work, and her lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of young students. Based upon that letter, the assistant superintendent for human resources issued a letter, dated July 18, 2013, suspending Respondent without pay for five days. Respondent never filed a grievance or any formal complaint contesting the above-described disciplinary actions taken as the result of her behavior. On May 8, 2013, Respondent was teaching her kindergarten class. She had 18 students in her classroom. She was being assisted in her classroom that day by Ms. Ellistine Smith, a retired principal. Near dismissal time, at approximately 2:30 p.m., D., a student in the classroom, became disruptive. D. had behavior problems throughout the school year. D. refused to stay in his assigned area and constantly disrupted lessons. D. is known as a "runner," meaning he would run away from teachers or the campus in general. Respondent regularly had to chase D. to try to catch him. She would never be able to catch him because whenever she got close, he would again run away. On that day, D. decided not to participate in class. He removed his shoes and threw them at other students, at the ground, and at Respondent. He took off his shirt and threw it at students. Respondent directed D. to go to time out, but he refused. Respondent asked Ms. Smith to keep an eye on the class while she removed D. from the classroom. Respondent looked outside the classroom for the paraeducator who normally sits in the hallway, but she was not present at that time. Respondent decided to take D. to the fifth grade building to have him stay with another paraeducator. D. voluntarily walked with Respondent down the hallway to the fifth grade building. She was holding him by the wrist. When they arrived at the fifth grade building, D. resisted going further and tried to pull away from Respondent. She maintained a stronger grip on his wrist to prevent him from running away. Respondent then opened the door to the fifth grade building, did not see anyone, but heard the copy machine running in the copy room. Respondent began to lead D. into the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) room outside the copy room, but he let his body go limp. Respondent lifted him to carry him into the building and towards the copy room, but could not go very far due to her petite stature. She dragged him a short distance to the copy room where Venise Stinfil, a third grade teacher was working. Respondent left D. with Ms. Stinfil, stating that "[she] can't handle or deal with this at this time, because I'm being observed." Respondent dropped the student's arm and returned to her classroom. Ms. Stinfil noticed scuff marks on D.'s shirt and that the shirt was very dirty and the student distraught. Fifth grade teacher Erin Rodgers was also present at the time Respondent brought D. to Ms. Stinfil's room. She saw Respondent holding D. by his arm and dragging him a short distance into Ms. Stinfil's room. Respondent did not intend to injure D., and he did not appear to have any physical injuries as a result of being brought to Ms. Stinfil's room. Ms. Stinfil testified that her training would have led her to handle the situation with D. differently. When he went limp and laid on the floor, she would have talked with him to try and get him to stand up to move on to their destination rather than taking him by the wrist and pulling/dragging him along. If the student refused to get up, she would have called someone from administration, who was trained in handling such situations, to help talk the student into compliance or appropriately help him up and move to their destination. She had been trained to never put her hands on students. Respondent acknowledged that the procedures she used in taking D. from her classroom might not have been the preferred method in which other teachers had been trained, but it was a choice of handling such matters she had used before. Respondent received a letter from Mr. Dunn dated July 29, 2013, advising her that Superintendent LeRoy would recommend her termination from employment at the next meeting of the School Board on August 13, 2013. When Respondent requested a hearing concerning the termination, she was suspended without pay pending the outcome of this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19, North Clearwater, Florida 33761 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Kathryn LeRoy, Superintendent Polk County School District Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831
The Issue The issue is whether, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a) and (6), Florida Statutes, Respondent committed misconduct in office when he pawned a school laptop computer and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is 33 years old. His father has served Petitioner as a principal, and his mother has served Petitioner as a primary specialist; combined, Respondent's parents have 64 years' service in Petitioner's school system. Respondent attended high school locally, where he achieved prominence as a football player, and continued his football career in college. Petitioner hired Respondent in an instructional position on July 1, 1992, shortly after he obtained his bachelor's degree. Respondent began work as a pool substitute. At the time, he was also pursuing a master's degree in guidance. When a guidance job became available, Petitioner hired Respondent as a guidance counselor. After four years as a guidance counselor, Respondent became an assistant principal in March 2001 at a middle school. Three assistant principals help the principal at this middle school. Respondent's duties include supervision of discipline, safety, and maintenance of the school. On July 19, 2001, Respondent's principal assigned to Respondent an Apple G-4 Titanium laptop computer. Respondent understood that he was to use the computer for school-related job duties, such as staff development and classroom use. On August 25, 2001, Respondent took the computer to Richie's Pawn Shop in Tamarac to pawn the computer. Respondent disclosed to the pawn shop owner that the computer was owned by Petitioner, not Respondent. However, the pawn shop owner, who had known Respondent nearly 20 years earlier, when he had purchased items from the shop, nevertheless allowed Respondent to pawn the computer. Respondent signed a document that represented that he owned the computer. Pursuant to the agreement, the pawn shop owner gave Respondent $350. The agreement provided that Respondent could redeem the computer at anytime during the next 30 days by repaying the $350 plus a finance charge of $52.50. According to the agreement, at the conclusion of the first 30 days, Respondent could redeem the computer at anytime during the next 30 days by repaying the $350 plus a finance charge of $105. After 60 days, Respondent would lose the right to redeem the computer. Respondent used the money for expenses on a trip that he was taking that weekend to retrieve his four-year-old daughter, who was visiting Respondent's parents in Ocala. The following Monday, August 27, Respondent was back at work as an assistant principal. Respondent did not return to the pawn shop to redeem the computer for a little over two weeks. On September 12, Respondent returned to the pawn shop and attempted to redeem the computer. The prior day, though, a Broward County Sheriff's Officer, on a routine check of the pawn shop, had run the registration number of the computer that Respondent had pawned and learned that it was the property of Petitioner. The officer had informed one of Petitioner's investigators of the presence of the computer in the pawn shop. One of the law enforcement officers then ordered the pawn shop owner to hold the computer and not allow anyone to remove it. Pursuant to the order that he had received, the pawn shop owner informed one of Petitioner's investigators when Respondent tried to redeem the computer. Contrary to the allegation of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent went to the pawn shop to redeem the computer not knowing that Petitioner or law enforcement had discovered the wrongful pawning. Petitioner recovered the computer, undamaged. Petitioner's investigator correctly concluded that Respondent had not attempted or intended to deprive Petitioner of the computer permanently. He also correctly concluded that Respondent had not intended to deprive Petitioner permanently of the computer. Among the witnesses attesting to Respondent's value as an employee of Petitioner was Petitioner's Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigation Unit. The Executive Director has served Petitioner for 28 years, including four years as a principal. While a principal, the Executive Director hired Respondent and found him a valuable employee. When the Professional Standards Committee recommended termination of Respondent, the Executive Director suggested to the Superintendent that he recommend a ten-day suspension and three-year demotion, which the Superintendent adopted as his recommendation to the School Board. Other witnesses with considerable knowledge of Petitioner testified to his enthusiasm, talent, energy, and competence as an employee of Petitioner. In particular, Respondent's principal, who has served Petitioner for 33 years, testified that Respondent showed considerable initiative and exceeded all expectations. Although unaware of the reason for Respondent's absence, the students and parents all missed Respondent. The principal testified that even the teachers were unaware of the reason for Respondent's absence. Describing Respondent as a "tremendous asset" to the school system, the principal testified that the incident did not diminish Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of Petitioner. The temporary loss of possession of the computer did not prevent Respondent from completing any of his work assignments, nor did it deprive anyone else from the use of a computer, as the school has dozens of extra computers. Respondent has not previously received discipline as an employee of Petitioner. Petitioner's Employee Disciplinary Guidelines provides in part: DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES It is the intent of the School Board to treat all employees on a fair and equitable basis in the administration of disciplinary measures. Discipline is a corrective rather than a punitive measure. In dealing with deficiencies in employee work performance or conduct, progressive discipline shall be administered, except in situations where immediate steps must be taken to ensure student/staff safety. Progressive discipline may include, but is not limited to: informal discussion, oral warning, written warning, written reprimand, enrollment in professional skills enhancement programs, suspension without pay, demotion, change in contract status or termination of employment. There are certain categories of misconduct, however, which are so offensive as to render an employee no longer employable. The only appropriate disciplinary measure in these cases (See Section II, Category A) is the termination of the employment relationship with the Broward County School System (F.S., 231.28) The severity of the misconduct in each case, together with relevant circumstances (III (c)), will determine what step in the range of progressive discipline is followed. A more severe discipline measure will be used when it is in the best interest of the students of the community we serve. It is the intent that employees who have similar deficiencies in work performance or misconduct, will be treated similarly and compliant with the principle of just cause. * * * DISCIPLINARY ACTION (CATEGORY A) OFFENSE PENALTY Inappropriate sexual Dismissal conduct including, but not limited to, sexual battery, possession or sale of pornography involving minors, sexual relations with a student or the attempt thereof Sale/distribution of a Dismissal controlled substance Reckless display, Dismissal threatening with guns or weapons on School Board property or at School Board events (CATEGORY B) OFFENSE PENALTY (a) Committing a Suspension/Dismissal criminal act--felony * * * Unlawful possession, Suspension/Dismissal use or being under the influence of a controlled substance Driving Under the Suspension/Dismissal Influence under the scope of employment * * * (i) Possession of guns or Reprimand/Dismissal weapons on School Board property * * * (m) Any violation of The Reprimand/Dismissal Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in the State of Florida--State Board of Education, Administrative Rule 6B-1.001 * * * Misappropriation of Suspension/Dismissal Funds Insubordination, Reprimand/Dismissal which is defined as a continuing or intentional failure to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority Unauthorized use of Reprimand/Dismissal School Board property * * * Section III of the Employee Disciplinary Guidelines reserves to the Superintendent and School Board considerable discretion in imposing discipline, including termination, for any just cause. This section identifies a wide range of aggravating or mitigating factors, including the severity of the offense, degree of student involvement, impact on the school and community, number of repetitions of the offense, length of time since the misconduct, employment history, actual damage, deterrent effect of discipline, actual knowledge of the employee about the misconduct, related misconduct by the employee, pecuniary benefit by the employee, mental or physical harm to persons in school or community, length of employment, employee's evaluation, and employee's adherence to self-reporting policy. Although the actions of Respondent in this case may also constitute misuse of institutional privileges, they are best defined as misconduct in office. The record fails to establish that these actions rise to the level of immorality. The unlawful pawning of a school computer reduces an employee's effectiveness as an employee of the school system, even if, as here, few administrators, teachers, students, or parents know of the misconduct. Unlawfully pawning a school computer is a betrayal of trust that, once detected, is necessarily known by at least some superiors of Respondent, and their knowledge of this misconduct reduces the trust they can place in Respondent and must be able to place in each employee, especially administrators. Numerous mitigating factors apply in this case. The offense is not especially severe, especially given Respondent's intent to redeem the computer prior to the maturity date of the pawn. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent or any other of Petitioner's employees was prevented or impeded from performing his or her duties due to the pawning of the computer for less than three weeks. The incident does not involve students. It is an isolated incident, and Respondent has not previously been the subject of discipline during his ten-year tenure with Petitioner. Respondent has been an outstanding employee. Another mitigating factor is Respondent's relative youth. Obviously, aggravating factors are that the incident involves pecuniary gain on Respondent's part, although a relatively modest amount, and Respondent did not self-report. Another aggravating factor is the deterrent effect of discipline in this case. Petitioner is justifiably concerned with safeguarding its computers. Obviously, the most applicable provision from the disciplinary guidelines is unauthorized use of school property, for which the penalty ranges from reprimand to dismissal. In some respects, the pawning of the computer is a minor instance of the unauthorized use of school property because Respondent was without the computer for less than three weeks, did not need the computer during that time to perform his school work, did not consume the property or shorten its useful life during its unauthorized use, and never intended to permanently deprive Petitioner of the computer. Also, others at his school did not go without computers while Respondent's computer was in the pawn shop. In one respect, the pawning of the computer is a serious instance of the unauthorized use of school property because it is an expensive asset of the school. The disciplinary guidelines also require the imposition of progressive discipline. The range for the unauthorized use of school property is reprimand to dismissal. Petitioner has imposed demotion and suspension, which more closely approach dismissal than reprimand. Petitioner's selection of discipline in this case is driven mostly by a desire to achieve deterrence and fairness. Petitioner must discourage its many employees from pawning school computers and other expensive, portable electronic equipment, even in situations, as here, where they do not intend to deprive Petitioner permanently of the asset. Deterrence is a listed aggravating factor, and, given the potential for a problem with this kind of behavior, deterrence is the most important aggravating factor. The fairness issue is more problematic for Petitioner. Petitioner is commendably trying to treat Respondent as it has treated two other, nonadministrative employees who were caught misusing computers. In one case, an employee broke into a secure area, stole a computer, and pawned it. In the other case, an employee with authorized possession of a computer pawned it, possibly with the intent of permanently depriving Petitioner of its property. Otherwise, the facts concerning aggravating and mitigating factors in these two cases are not developed in this record. The three cases are the same in that employees pawned school computers, but, based on this record, the resemblances end there. Respondent is a relatively young person, who admittedly exercised poor judgment, but his employment record with Petitioner has been outstanding and this misconduct constitutes an isolated incident. An important part of this case is the testimony of experienced, mature coworkers and superiors, who are informed about the incident and have known Respondent for many years. Supporting Respondent in his effort at least to reduce the punishment, these employees provide a balanced view of the competing factors in finding the appropriate discipline. They weigh the importance of deterring employees from misusing expensive school equipment against the importance of, as provided by Petitioner's disciplinary guidelines, treating discipline not as punitive, but as corrective--in recognition of the fallibility of the human element and its preeminence among Petitioner's assets. The Administrative Complaint seeks a 10-day suspension and demotion under one factual misunderstanding--that Respondent did not redeem the computer until after he knew that Petitioner had uncovered the misconduct. Under all of the circumstances, including Petitioner's use of progressive, corrective discipline, the most serious discipline authorized by the disciplinary guidelines is a 10-day suspension without pay.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and imposing a ten-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street, Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 David T. Alvarez, Esquire Alvarez & Martinez, L.L.P. One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 604 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether St. Lucie County School Board (School Board) Rules 6.16 and 6.50*+ are invalid exercises in delegated legislative authority as defined by sections 120.52(8)(c), (d), and (e).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Jones is currently an employee of the St. Lucie County School Board, and has a professional service contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Her status with the School Board is “suspended without pay,” for reasons that are not relevant to this proceeding. As a classroom teacher, Ms. Jones is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of St. Lucie County and the Classroom Teachers Association. On June 13, 2017, the School Board suspended Ms. Jones without pay and on July 27, 2017, a Petition for Termination in Termination I was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing. At that point, while Ms. Jones remained an employee of the School Board, she received no pay and no benefits from the School District. She began to look for other employment to support herself and her family. Ms. Jones applied to and was offered a job to work as a music teacher by the Somerset Academy St. Lucie (Somerset). Somerset is a charter school in St. Lucie County sponsored by and located within the geographical bounds of the School District and the jurisdictional bounds of the School Board. Ms. Jones did not submit an application for leave and the School Board did not approve a request for leave of absence in order for Ms. Jones to work at Somerset. By letter dated August 28, 2017, Superintendent Gent notified Ms. Jones of his intent to recommended to the School Board that she be terminated for grounds in addition to the already-existing suspension, i.e., for violating the School Board’s Rules 6.16(1); 6.301(2), (3)(b)(i), (3)(b)(xix), and (3)(b)(xxix); and 6.50*+. That letter became the basis for the Termination II proceeding. The factual basis for pursuing the second termination proceeding was that Ms. Jones was working at Somerset without having applied for and received approval for a leave of absence from the School Board. The merits of the School Board’s allegations in this second proceeding are no longer relevant in terms of Ms. Jones’ employment with the School Board, as the School Board, through counsel, has represented that the School Board no longer intends to pursue the allegations in Termination II. The allegations are relevant and informative, however, in establishing the School Board’s interpretation of its rules and establishing Ms. Jones’ standing to challenge the validity of those rules. The evidence presented at hearing established that Ms. Jones has standing to bring this rule challenge. School Board rule 6.16 is entitled “Dual employment,” and provides as follows: No person may be employed to work in more than one position in the school system except upon the recommendation of the Superintendent and approval of the School Board. No employee shall accept other employment that might impair the independence of his or her judgment in the performance of his or her duties. Rule 6.16 lists as its statutory authority sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and lists sections 1001.43 and 1012.22 as the laws implemented. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. School Board Policy 6.50*+ is entitled “Leave of Absence,” and provides in pertinent part: Leave of absence. A leave of absence is permission granted by the School Board or allowed under its adopted policies for an employee to be absent from duty for a specified period of time with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave. Any absence of a member of the staff from duty shall be covered by leave duly authorized and granted. Leave shall be officially granted in advance and shall be used for the purposes set forth in the leave application. Leave for sickness or other emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance if prompt report is made to the proper authority. Length of Leave and Pay. Generally, no leave or combination of leaves, except military leave or Workers’ Compensation Leave, will be granted for a period in excess of one year. Illness-in-line-of- duty leave may not be extended beyond the maximum medical improvement date or a maximum of two (2) years from the date of injury, whichever is the earliest date. Leave may be with or without pay as provided by law, regulations of the State Board, and these rules. For any absence that is without pay, the deduction for each day of absence shall be determined by dividing the annual salary by the number of days/hours for the employment period. Employment leave. A leave shall not be granted to any employee to accept other employment unless the leave is to accept employment at a charter school as provided in paragraph (5) below. Accepting employment while on a leave of absence cancels the leave automatically. The person on leave will be notified that he or she must return to work with the School Board immediately, resign or be terminated. The Superintendent shall develop procedures to implement leave provisions. Charter School Leave. An employee may be granted leave to accept employment at a charter school in St. Lucie County in accordance with the following provisions: Teachers. Teachers may apply for leave to work at a charter school. The School Board will not require resignation of teachers desiring to work at a charter school. Teachers granted such leave by the School Board are not required to be on a continuing or professional services contract and shall not be subject to the seven (7) continuous years’ service requirement. Should a teacher on leave elect to return to work at the District, the teacher shall return to the teacher’s former position or a comparable position for which the teacher is qualified. * * * Method to Request Leave. An application to request leave to accept employment in a charter school shall be submitted using the procedures specified in Policy 6.501(1). For ten month instructional personnel, an application to request leave to accept employment at a charter school shall be submitted to the principal at least forty-five (45) days prior to the first day of work for the school year . . . . Insurance and Retirement Benefits. It shall be the sole responsibility of the charter school site to provide insurance and retirement benefits to charter school employees . . . . * * * Notice of Intent to Return. Employees on charter school leave shall give the School Board written notice of their intent to return at least sixty (60) days prior to the beginning of the semester they wish to return. Requirement for Annual Renewal. Charter school leave must be renewed annually. It is the sole responsibility of the employee on leave to submit an annual written letter notice of leave to the Superintendent or designee, and a copy of the annual written letter notice of leave to the employee’s school principal or immediate supervisor, as applicable, on or before April 1 of each year if they wish to renew their charter school leave for the following school year. Employees who do not submit the required annual leave form on or before April 1st will be considered to have voluntarily terminated their employment, and will no longer be eligible for any benefits or other consideration under this leave policy. (Emphasis supplied.) 11. Rule 6.50*+ lists sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33 as its statutory authority, and lists sections 1001.43, 1002.33(12)(e), 1012.22, 1012.61, 1012.63, and 1012.66 as the laws it implements. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. Rule 6.50*+ provides that if a teacher working for the School Board wishes to work at a charter school within St. Lucie County, that teacher must apply for permission to do so. However, the definition of a leave of absence in the first paragraph of rule 6.50*+ specifically provides that a leave of absence allowed under the rule is for a specified period of time “with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave.” By its terms, the rule does not appear to encompass those employees whose status is “suspended without pay,” given that those employees who are suspended without pay do not necessarily have the right to return to employment upon expiration of leave. Rule 6.50*+ also provides that an application for charter school leave shall be provided to the teacher’s principal at least 45 days before the beginning of the school year. For teachers on suspension without pay or who are not assigned to a particular school, there is no principal to whom the application can be given. The rule does not specify an alternative. Instead, Mr. Clements stated that it would be up to Ms. Jones (and presumably, anyone in her circumstance) to ask where to submit an application for charter school leave. The School Board interprets rule 6.50*+ as applying to all employees, regardless of their status. Rule 6.50*+ does not indicate what criteria would be used for determining if an employee’s application for leave should be granted. Mr. Clements testified that the decision is made on a case-by-case basis. He also testified that had Ms. Jones applied for charter school leave, he would not have recommended that her request be approved, because as a teacher on unpaid suspension, she is not in good standing with the School District. Nothing in rule 6.50*+ alerts Ms. Jones, or any other teacher in her circumstances, that her suspension without pay would be a basis for disapproval of an application for charter school leave. Nothing in the rule alerts any applicant of the criteria to be considered for the grant or denial of a requested leave of absence. The consideration of a staff member’s current disciplinary status is not an unreasonable consideration for the Superintendent or for the School District. It is not, however, included in the rule as a basis for deciding whether a request for charter school leave should be approved or denied.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this case, Tuff was employed by the School Board as a custodian and assigned to one of the School Board's transportation centers. At all relevant times, Tuff was an "educational support employee," who has successfully completed his probationary period within the meaning of Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes; a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1184 (AFSCME); and was covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract). For at least two years prior to his termination, Tuff's attendance record and job performance were poor. Tuff repeatedly violated School Board rules regarding unauthorized absences and or procedures relating to medical leave. Under the AFSCME contract, the School Board could have taken disciplinary action, including termination, on numerous occasions during this period, but did not. By way of defense, Tuff contended that at all relevant times, the School Board knew or should have known that Tuff's absences were related to a medical condition which has since been mitigated through proper treatment. Tuff's evidence concerning what, if any, medical condition he had was unpersuasive. It is therefore unnecessary to reach the question of whether Tuff's medical condition, if proved, would have afforded a legal defense to his absences from work under the facts and circumstances of this case. Tuff's absences created a morale problem among co- workers, who were chronically imposed upon to perform tasks which properly belonged to Tuff. Tuff's co-workers complained to mutual supervisors. Supervisors, in turn, spoke frequently to one another and to Tuff about his attendance record, all of which was disruptive to the workplace. Although it is a violation of School Board policy to discuss a personnel issue with a non-employee, on one occasion, a supervisor in Tuff's chain of command, who had known "Mr. Tuff and his entire family for over 20 years," discussed Tuff's absenteeism with Tuff's father. By the spring of 2004 Petitioner decided it would no longer tolerate Tuff's inability to comply with its rules prohibiting unauthorized absence. At least one supervisor concluded there was "no other alternative but to follow the procedures and recommend termination." Petitioner thereafter commenced to document Respondent's unauthorized absences from the workplace, and to provide Respondent with applicable statutory and contractual notice regarding his failure to comply with Petitioner's relevant policies. More specifically, on April 8, 2003, and May 5, 2003, Tuff received verbal warnings for unauthorized absences. On June 18, 2003, Tuff received a written warning regarding continued unauthorized absences. The School Board documented and proved 11 unauthorized absences in the first and second quarters of 2003. Under the AFSCME contract, ten unauthorized absences in a 12-month period constitute grounds, standing alone, for termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Tuff's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Wallace, Esquire Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Manny Anon, Jr., Esquire AFSCME Council 79 99 Northwest 183rd Street, Suite 224 North Miami, Florida 33169 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct (to: wit: "conduct unbecoming a School Board employee" and "misconduct in office") alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County, Florida, just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence received at the formal hearing in this case, 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 Dade County, Florida. Respondent is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, an employee of the School Board occupying a school monitor position. He currently is under suspension as a result of the incident described in the Notice of Specific Charges. Other than this suspension, he has had no formal disciplinary action taken against him during the period of his employment with the School Board. 1/ Respondent's employment with the School Board began on March 10, 1993, when he was hired to fill an hourly school monitor position at John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK). At the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year, Respondent became a full-time school monitor at JFK. He remained in that position until he was administratively reassigned in March of 1995, following the incident which led to the initiation of the instant disciplinary proceeding. As a school monitor, Respondent is 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, 1994, through June 30, 1997 (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of a "employer rights." Section 1 of Article V provides, in part, that the School Board has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article VIII of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of a "safe learning environment." Section 1, paragraph A, of Article VIII provides as follows: 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. Section 1, paragraph D, of Article VIII provides, in part, as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accord- ingly, 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. Article XXI of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 1, paragraph B, of Article XXI provides, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)." Section 3, paragraph D, of Article XXI provides that educational support personnel who have completed their probationary period may be dismissed for just cause, which includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality and/or conviction of a crime involving moral tur- pitude. Such charges are defined, as appli- cable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009. Section 3, paragraph F, of Article XXI provides, in part, that such an educational support employee is entitled to an appeal hearing on the Superintendent's recommendation that he or she be terminated and is further entitled to be served by the School Board with a Notice of Specific Charges prior to the hearing. Valerie Carrier is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the principal of JFK. As principal, Carrier is responsible for the overall operation of the school. It is her obligation to take the necessary measures to maintain a safe environment for the school's students. There is a security staff at the school, comprised of school monitors, that assists Carrier in carrying out this responsibility. According to their job description, the school monitors on the school's security staff have the following "basic objectives" and "job tasks/responsibilities:" BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures that appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school admini- stration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the pre- sence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gathering areas (before, during and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Carrier assigns each school monitor a post at which the monitor performs these job duties. If a monitor observes, from his or her post, a student engaging in inappropriate behavior, the monitor may attempt to verbally redirect the student, but the monitor is not permitted to impose consequences for the student's behavior. Each monitor is issued a hand-held radio to be used for communicating with other school personnel. If a misbehaving student fails to comply with a monitor's verbal instructions, the monitor is required to use the hand-held radio to advise an administrator of the situation. Joshua Cummings was a student at JFK during the 1994-95 school year. He frequently engaged in inappropriate behavior. Carrier gave the members of her staff, including Respondent, special instructions regarding how they should respond to acts of inappropriate behavior on Joshua's part. 2/ She told them that they should report any such acts directly to her or, in her absence, her designee. On March 17, 1995, during the first lunch period, Respondent was assigned to a post on the entrance courtyard side of the chain link double-gate that separates the entrance courtyard from the cafeteria spill-out area. The cafeteria spill-out area is, as its name suggests, an area outside the cafeteria where students gather after eating lunch and wait for their lunch period to end. There is a school monitor posted in the cafeteria spill-out area near the door that students use to exit the cafeteria and enter the spill-out area. Another school monitor is stationed on the other side of the exit door inside the cafeteria. Pursuant to the standard operating procedure at the school, the chain link double-gate between the entrance courtyard and the cafeteria spill-out area remains closed and locked until the end of the lunch period, when the students are picked up by their teacher. At the teacher's request, the school monitor manning the post on the entrance courtyard side of the double-gate unlocks (with a key) and then opens the double-gate 3/ and lets the students waiting in the cafeteria spill-out area go into the entrance courtyard to meet their teacher. If it becomes necessary for a student in the spill-out area to use the restroom before the end of the lunch period, the student must reenter the cafeteria, obtain a pass from an administrator 4/ and then leave the cafeteria through the cafeteria's main entrance. Students are not permitted to use the double-gate to exit the spill- out area before the end of the lunch period. On March 17, 1995, Joshua Cummings had lunch during the first lunch period (which began at approximately 11:30 a.m. and lasted approximately 30 minutes). Jean LaDouceur and Dorys Cadet were among the other students who had lunch during the first lunch period on March 17, 1995. Approximately 100 or more of these students, including Joshua, Jean and Dorys, were in the cafeteria spill-out area, prior to the end of the first lunch period on this date, when Joshua started shaking the chain-link double- gate and yelling at Respondent to unlock and open the gate so that he (Joshua) could go to the restroom (which was located off the entrance courtyard near the gate). Respondent was in the area of his assigned post in the entrance courtyard sitting on the steps leading to the school auditorium. He got up and, as he walked toward the double-gate, he told Joshua that Joshua had to wait until the end of the period if he wanted to exit the spill-out area through the double-gate. Joshua apparently did not want to wait. He continued to shake the double-gate and shout obscenities at Respondent. Respondent responded in an unseemly and inappropriate manner that evinced a reckless disregard for the safety of Joshua and the other students in the spill-out area who were around him. Instead of continuing his efforts to verbally redirect Joshua or radioing for assistance, Respondent, from his position on the courtyard side of the double-gate, responded to Joshua's misbehavior by angrily hurling his hand-held radio (which had a battery pack attached to it) at the gate near where Joshua (who was on the spill-out area side of the gate) was standing. The radio hit the gate and shattered. Jean and Dorys were sitting on a picnic table in the spill-out area approximately twenty feet from the double-gate. There were several other students on or near the table with whom Jean and Dorys were conversing. The battery pack that had been attached to Respondent's hand-held radio before Respondent threw the radio at the gate wound up striking Jean on the right side of his forehead while he was sitting on the picnic table. (It apparently travelled through a space in the center of the gate.) Jean started bleeding. Accompanied by Dorys, Jean went to see Carrier to report what had happened. (To get to Carrier's office, which is off the entrance courtyard, approximately 20 feet from the double gate, they had to reenter the cafeteria because the double-gate was still locked.) Joshua also went to see Carrier. (He had been "nick[ed]" by a piece of Respondent's shattered radio.) After speaking with Jean and Joshua, Carrier called fire rescue. Fire rescue subsequently arrived on the scene and treated Jean's wound. Jean was advised by the paramedic who treated him to have a physician close the wound with stitches. Jean, however, did not seek further medical attention. (The wound eventually healed, but Jean has a small scar on the right side of his forehead as a result of his injury.) Carrier also called Jean's and Joshua's parents. After Jean's and Joshua's parents arrived at school, Carrier met with Respondent to discuss the incident. Respondent told Carrier what had happened. He went with Carrier to the entrance courtyard where he had been stationed and described how and where he had thrown his hand-held radio. Carrier picked up the pieces of Respondent's hand-held radio that were lying on the ground near the double-gate. Respondent also freely and voluntarily, at Carrier's request, prepared a written statement on the day of the incident in which he admitted that earlier that day, at about 11:53 a.m., in response to Joshua's yelling and kicking the double-gate, he had thrown his radio at the gate and that "parts of the radio [had gone] thr[ough] the gate and nick[ed Joshua]." After hearing the students' and Respondent's accounts of the incident, Carrier had legitimate concerns regarding Respondent's ability to effectively carry out his responsibilities as a school monitor. Respondent's conduct had jeopardized the health, safety and well-being of the very individuals it was his job, as a school monitor, to protect. Following the completion of an investigation of the incident, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools recommended 5/ that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate a dismissal proceeding against him. The School Board took such recommended action at its July 12, 1995, meeting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 19th day of February, 1996.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Leon County School District has just cause, as defined in Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), to end the Respondent's tenured employment as a teacher, due to allegedly deficient performance.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mr. Waters, has worked as a Special Education Teacher in Leon County for approximately 13 years. He most recently has worked in the field of Special Education at Oakridge Elementary School (Oakridge), starting in the school year 2001-2002 and ending in December 2005. Mr. Waters is married and has two children by a former wife, with whom he shares custody of his children. He has volunteered for 18 years as a Troop Leader for a troop of disabled Boy Scouts in Tallahassee. He has been recognized for those efforts by being the recipient of the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Foundation's "everyday hero" award. He has also been a finalist for the Tallahassee area "volunteer of the year award" in 2005. When Mr. Waters was hired at Oakridge Elementary School he was interviewed by the head ESE teacher or "team leader", Donna George. He was chosen for the available position from three or four final applicants, based upon her favorable view of the qualities he could bring to the position, which she still believes to be the case. During the 2001-2002 school year the principal at Oakridge was Michelle Crosby. Ms. Hodgetta Huckaby was the Assistant Principal. Sometime during that school year Mr. Waters encountered a problem involving two of his students being engaged in an after school fight. He apparently referred the students for discipline to the Assistant Principal, Ms. Huckaby, and she sent the students back to his class. He disagreed with this disciplinary decision and appealed the matter to the principal, Ms. Crosby. Ms. Crosby resolved the disciplinary matter in favor of Mr. Waters' position. Ms. Huckaby thereupon called Mr. Waters to her office to upbraid him and express her anger at his having "gone over her head." After a heated exchange between the two she told the Respondent to "never come back into my office for any reason." Thereafter, for the remainder of his tenure at Oakridge their relationship was very strained, especially during the time Ms. Huckaby was Principal, which began at the beginning of the following year, the 2002-2003 school year, after Ms. Crosby left Oakridge and was replaced by Ms. Huckaby. In order to replace Ms. Huckaby's vacant former position as assistant principal, the District assigned Kim McFarland as the new assistant principal in the fall of 2002. Prior coming to the assistant principalship at Oakridge, Ms. McFarland had served as a fifth grade regular classroom teacher for 10 years in the District. She had no prior administrative experience and had no experience in Exceptional Student Education. Her degree field is in the area of elementary education. After the events at issue in this case, Ms. McFarland left Oakridge, on July 1, 2006, to become the assistant principal at Swiftcreek Middle School. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland jointly performed the annual evaluation of the Respondent for the 2002-2003 school year. They used the "Accomplished Teacher Performance Feed Back Summary Form." Mr. Waters's overall rating for that year was "at expectancy level." Ms. McFarland wrote several positive comments concerning his performance on that document, but he also received ratings of "below expectancy" in two areas, teacher performance improvement and professional development. Also, in the Spring of 2003, Ms. McFarland observed his class on or about April 23, 2003. She was positive about that evaluation and wrote Mr. Waters a note wherein she indicated that he had "presented a great lesson" and that his students were engaged and on task. She praised him for monitoring student behavior using a behavior management point system and found his room "exciting" because he displayed a great deal of students work on the walls. In the 2003-2004 school year, specifically in November 2003, Ms. McFarland informed Mr. Waters that his lesson plans were not adequate because he was failing to incorporate a new component which required that notations of student remedial reading levels be made, represented by "lower case" roman numerals. She required him to submit his lesson plans to be reviewed each Monday while he was seeking to improve his lesson plans. Thereafter, on April 26, 2004, Ms. McFarland notified the Respondent that he had satisfactorily complied with lesson plan requirements and no longer needed to submit lesson plans for review each Monday. She also emphasized in that letter of April 26, 2004, that he should adhere to his lesson plans, as prepared, in his teaching presentation to the extent possible, so that when administrators observed his room they would be able to determine exactly what he was performing at the time simply by looking at his lesson plan book. In the meantime, Mr. Waters was given an improvement notice on February 20, 2004, by Ms. McFarland. This was because of her concern that he was not fully cooperating with procedures and recommendations concerning behavior management; recommendations made by behavior management consultants on contract with the School Board. Those consultants were working with him and his emotionally handicapped (EH) student class at that time. During their meetings and contacts with Mr. Waters and his EH student class that year he had exhibited a good level of agreement and cooperation with their recommendations to him regarding changes in behavior management methodologies for his class, but the consultant, Dr. Adams, perceived that he was slow or reluctant to actually carry them out. Later in the spring of that school year, Dr. Adams took Mr. Waters on a tour at Kate Sullivan Elementary and another school, to observe how behavior management models or methodologies were employed in EH classes at those schools and which Dr. Adams opined he was later reluctant to implement in his own class. They communicated these concerns about his perceived intransigence in changing his behavioral management style or methodology to the administration at Oakridge, which resulted in the February 20, 2004, improvement notice from Ms. McFarland. Significantly, however, Ms. Haff, in her observations of the Respondent's performance during the following school year found that he had received the higher level of training in the "Champs program" concerning behavioral management, and had been and was successfully implementing it in his class and with his students to a great degree, although, of necessity, adapting it to the needs of his students and his role then as a resource teacher, rather than as a discrete EH classroom teacher during the following 2004-2005 school year. Ms. Huckaby changed his assignment from duty as a direct class EH teacher to that of "resource teacher" after the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Waters had a meeting with Ms. McFarland on February 20, 2004, to discuss that improvement notice, and her concerns that he was not fully cooperating with the recommendations of the behavior management consultants in terms of not carrying out their recommendations. During the course of that meeting she stated, "You know its not me that’s behind this" implying to him that Ms. Huckaby was actually the instigator of the improvement notice concerning this subject matter. Apparently Mr. Waters contacted union officials for the Leon County Teachers Association (LCTA) complaining that the improvement notice was too general and did not specifically point out what must be done to correct the perceived problem. In response to those concerns, in part, Ms. McFarland issued a subsequent improvement notice on April 27, 2004, with a few more specific expectations and which updated the status of Mr. Waters's efforts to address the concerns raised in the February 20th revised improvement notice. Ms. McFarland observed Mr. Waters' class on March 11 and March 16 and did a "part A" teacher's assessment document for each observation. Mr. Waters was due to be evaluated using the Accomplished Teacher Summary Form for 2003-2004 and so the assessment part A form was not required to be completed for him. Nonetheless, Ms. McFarland told Mr. Waters that these were really informal observations and she was completing these observation forms in order to get some practice using them since it was her first year as an administrator, formally observing and evaluating teachers independent of Ms. Huckaby. The Respondent did not get a copy of these assessment part A documents until June of that year and did not get an opportunity to discuss them with Ms. McFarland. Ms. McFarland also completed the Accomplished Teacher Feedback Summary Form for the 2003-2004 school year. That form states that overall assessments must be satisfactory if all the required areas are completed. Ms. McFarland described Waters' performance unfavorably in the "comments" section of the form and gave him an overall performance rating of "below expectancy level." He received this Accomplished Teacher Summary Form rating document on or about September 22, 2004. During the month of October he inquired of Ms. McFarland, union officials, and school district officials concerning the meaning of his overall "below expectancy" rating for the 2003-2004 school year. Apparently an attorney for the school district informed him that the evaluation was considered satisfactory on the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form, unless school administrators produced an evaluation document that indicated an overall "needs improvement" rating. Ms. McFarland had informed him that the Accomplished Teacher document reflecting the below expectancy rating was his only official evaluation. Although Mr. Waters received confirmation that the use of the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form rendered his 2003-2004 evaluation to be automatically a satisfactory one, it is also clear that Ms. McFarland intended to give him the below expectancy rating and for some reason mistakenly used the wrong form and procedure. During October 2004 the Respondent met with Ms. Huckaby to discuss some matter unrelated to his performance rating. During the course of that meeting, at which only Ms. Huckaby and the Respondent were present, Ms. Huckaby became angry at the Respondent and engaged in a tirade, calling him "the worst teacher she had ever seen, as well as making other unprofessional comments." Mr. Waters then stated to the effect that he did not think he was such a bad teacher since he had consistently received satisfactory evaluations. Ms. Huckaby then indicated that she felt he had received a needs improvement evaluation for the 2003-2004 school year, to which Mr. Waters retorted that based upon the Accomplished Teachers Summary Form being used his evaluation was deemed to be satisfactory overall. Ms. Huckaby then angrily threatened him with an unsatisfactory evaluation for the upcoming 2004-2005 school year. Only a week or two elapsed after this meeting and comment by Ms. Huckaby when, at Ms. Huckaby's behest, Mr. Waters inclusion class was changed to a "pull-out reading group," meaning that he then had to work with a new reading curriculum and plan his own reading lessons using that curriculum instead of relying upon and carrying out the regular classroom teacher's daily lesson plan reading goals, which had been the program he had been instructed to perform previously. Ms. Eydie Sands was dispatched by Ms. Huckaby to observe Mr. Waters' reading class and made critical observations during follow-up meetings with Mr. Waters and Ms. Huckaby; the team-taught writing group jointly taught by Mr. Waters and Ms. Wacksman, which had worked well in rendering progress to the students in writing, was abruptly separated into two sections by Ms. Huckaby with no explanation or apparent reason; thereafter on approximately November 6, 2004, Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a lengthy letter of harsh criticism as to almost all aspects of his teaching performance and directed him to immediately comply with 13 directives contained in the letter. Additionally, Mr. Waters' 2004-2005 school year resource teacher schedule was changed five times, adding further confusion to an already difficult year, which started with a new classroom assignment. The new room was piled high with boxes of materials for many teachers and classrooms other than his own. This circumstance required him to spend his entire pre-planning time moving and clearing out his newly assigned room so that he could use it. Significant changes and requirements were imposed for lesson plans, student progress monitoring requirements, and the new A3 computerized IEP technology, as well as a substantially increased amount of related paperwork burdens placed upon all teachers at the school, including Mr. Waters, through Ms. Huckaby's policy directives. One directive in the November 6, 2004, letter from Ms. Huckaby required Mr. Waters to again submit weekly lesson plans to school administrators by 8:00 a.m. every Monday morning. The normal procedure provided for having lesson plans to be examined from time to time, after advance administration notice to the faculty of their lesson plan review dates. Despite lesson plan component changes made unilaterally by the administration in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years which added several time-consuming, ill-defined requirements to the previous less formal structure for lesson plans, the Respondent's lesson plans during those years remained detailed and organized when compared to those of his fellow special education teachers who apparently were deemed to have performed this task appropriately. In carrying out this instruction Mr. Waters tried to obtain model lesson plans and to incorporate the new requirements into his plans. They were consistently unacceptable to Ms. Huckaby, however, and ultimately cited as one of the reasons for his termination recommendation. Similar, and even less detailed lesson plans of his colleagues that had been found acceptable, were not reviewed or remained the same even after administrators provided plan improvement instructions, without those teachers being subjected to discipline therefor. In an effort to comply with the directive concerning his lesson plans and because the new lesson plan components imposed were difficult to understand and reasonably apply, especially for an ESE teacher and students, Mr. Waters sought to obtain model plans and lesson plan advice, but received little or no meaningful help. His mentor teacher assigned for 2004-2005, Michelle Smith, did not respond to his request for samples of her lesson plans. The Oakridge administration gave him only limited excerpts of two teachers' lesson plans for 2004-2005, which were confusing and did not themselves comply with the new lesson plan format imposed that year. In the 2005-2006 year the Respondent was not asked to submit lesson plans on a weekly basis and received no assistance with lesson plans until Ms. Palazesi, who was observing his class or classes that fall, in early November, wrote a model lesson plan, adapted from one of his actual lessons. Ms. Palezesi, however, was not aware of the lesson plan requirements in place at Oakridge then, and even her lengthy lesson plan sample, for just one class period, did not meet all of Oakridge's lesson plan criteria imposed for 2005-2006. It is noteworthy that the lesson plans for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 of teacher Charles Robshaw, also a resource teacher for Special Ed at Oakridge clearly do not comply with the lesson plan requirements. This fact serves to corroborate the Respondent's contention that only he was held strictly accountable for the administration's excessively detailed and to some extent non-germane lesson plan requirements. In both pertinent school years the Respondent was deemed deficient by Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland in terms of timely or fully complying with student progress monitoring test data compilation requirements. The Respondent did keep abreast of his students daily classroom progress and maintained files on their work and test papers. In the 2004-2005 school year, however, in the early part of the year (September thorough mid- November) he encountered problems in timely complying with submitting the "cover sheet" student progress test data information as part of the curriculum notebook he was required to supply the administration, through the mechanism of either monthly or bi-weekly progress monitoring meetings between teachers and the administration. He was given a needs improvement notice as to this issue, and as the year progressed, he complied with these requirements. In the 2005-2006 school year he inadvertently missed the initial progress monitoring meeting because he became confused as to when his fourth grade team was supposed to meet for the progress monitoring session and he candidly admitted that was his own mistake. Ms. McFarland did not criticize him for that, but simply reminded him that he had missed the meeting. A subsequent meeting early in the fall of 2005 was scheduled with Ms. McFarland and he did attend with his notebook (or other required data) for a 3:00 p.m. meeting. He had an pre-existing appointment after school at 3:30, which he could not miss, and he informed Ms. McFarland of that fact. She excused him from the meeting. After those two early progress monitoring meeting discrepancies in September 2005, however, the Respondent complied with his progress monitoring requirements and those issues were not again raised with him, until raised as one of the reasons in Ms. Huckaby's final decision in late December 2005 as to why she recommended his termination. Significantly, the school administration only checked to see that teachers other than Mr. Waters had completed similar student data compilations only once or twice early in each school year. Subsequently, each year the administration was less interested in actually inspecting such data and course test score charts plotted on spread sheets/graphs by most teachers. In neither of the two school years in question was Mr. Waters given a full planning period or a week after students arrived to prepare for his resource assignment ESE students. These are privileges which were customarily given to resource teachers in prior years. Despite the meager planning time he was accorded on the administrator's schedule, in reality he lost significant valuable planning time by escorting students to and from classes and due to his morning duties. Adequate planning time is crucial to the work of special education teachers, particularly if one is deemed to be struggling with lesson planning, IEP preparation and timeliness issues, and related A3 IEP technology time demands. The Respondent asked for schedule changes to improve his ability to meet the new administration demands, as, for instance, to allow time during the day to input IEP requirements into the A3 system to prepare IEP documents, instead of at the end of the school day when all the ESE teachers were on the A3 system, which slowed it down drastically. Ms. Huckaby, however, never agreed to provide such schedule changes so that he could more efficiently use his planning time. Indeed, in the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Huckaby scheduled Mr. Waters to spend 26.25 hours teaching students each week which is more than the 25 hour per week maximum teaching time provided by the collective bargaining agreement while still providing him less than a full class period of uninterrupted planning time. Sometime in the 2003-2004 school year the system for generating individual education plans (IEP) changed from paper IEPs or the so called "gibco" IEP system (apparently a school based software operated system) to a district-wide computer net system called the "A3 IEP." This was a difficult system to learn and to use in completing IEP's without mistakes in the first effort. The District made training available in 2004, particularly in the summer of 2004 and subsequently. It can take as much as three hours to create IEP's "from scratch" on the A3 system and to input all the necessary student demographic and test score history data to upgrade a previously hand-written or gibco-generated IEP in converting it to an A3 IEP. This is especially so for newly trained or partially trained teachers. Complicating these time constraints were the Respondent's limited planning time, with competing meetings being held in the conference room area where cumulative ("cume") folders were housed at Oakridge, which are necessary to the student data research required to generate the IEP's. Thus teacher access to the demographic and testing information needed for IEP completion was somewhat restricted at times. Moreover, Mr. Waters had his only significant block of continuous planning time, when he could work on IEP's, immediately after school. This is the time of day when the A3 IEP computer network operates very slowly because most of the ESE teachers in the entire district are attempting to use it immediately after school hours. These factors are part of the reasons Mr. Waters in the Spring of 2004 had an occasion when IEP's were prepared somewhat late and computer-generated progress reports on one occasion were submitted several days late. It is also true that the Respondent and Ms. Wacksman were not formally trained on the A3 system until late January 2005. This delay in receiving the A3 system training appears to have been due to both the Respondent's and Ms. Wackman's delay in seeking the training and the district's and the school's inattention to scheduling the training sessions. With regard to the occasion testified to by Ms. Petrick concerning his late preparation of, or need to correct mistakes in some IEPs, the Respondent established that he immediately corrected the minor mistakes in several of the IEPs he prepared and that, when Ms. Petrick contacted him about the need for him to make corrections, in several instances the corrections had already been made on the original IEP in question but had not gotten corrected on her copy. Moreover, four or five of the students who had to have corrected IEPs, or whose IEPs were submitted slightly late were students who the Respondent himself had identified to his administration as being wrongly placed by the administration. The students were supposed to have been in a fourth grade level program and instead were in a first or second grade level program. This necessitated re-constituting their IEPs. The Respondent, after alerting the administration to its error also completed the new IEPs on these students. In any event, it is true that Mr. Waters could have begun sooner and more timely prepared the IEPs involved and the same is true of the occasion when the somewhat late progress reports caused his reprimand by Ms. McFarland. It is also true, however, that the requirement of using the cumbersome A3 system to prepare IEPs, more particularly the lack of adequate usable planning time, and the somewhat chaotic effects of five schedule changes during that school year imposed by Ms. Huckaby also contributed to the issue encountered near the end of that year concerning timeliness and corrected IEPs. Although the Respondent received less than satisfactory evaluation ratings as to professionalism and ethics because of the issue regarding delays and mistakes in the IEPs described above, these were a small number of occurrences, concerning very few students, at one particular period of time in the school year. They did not cause any delay or other adverse effect in the provision of ESE services to students nor the loss of any federal, state, or other special education funds, or adverse effects on the school's rating. Moreover, this aspect of Mr. Waters' performance improved after this occasion. Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland made significant changes in required lesson plan and progress monitoring formats, and student progress charting. These requirements were considerably more time demanding and were accompanied by rigid reliance on upgraded, scripted reading and standardized math curricula with the advent of the 2005-2006 school year. These new requirements were to be applied by all ESE teachers for their students. Ms. Huckaby imposed a severely time-constrained, scripted reading curriculum for Mr. Waters' class and also a mandatory new vocabulary program that took up to 15 minutes more of his reading class time block each day. She also required an additional fluency probe-recording requirement to be carried out weekly in all reading classes, including Mr. Waters', which required an average time for completion of five minutes per student. Mr. Waters' reading mastery (RM) curriculum required class time scheduled during the first ninety minutes of his day in the 2005-2006 year. This was clearly impossible to carry out and remain consistent with the RM program's lesson sequence requirements, particularly with the addition of the fluency probe and vocabulary project requirements that Mr. Waters and all teachers were required to include in their reading classes that year. In fact, the reading mastery schedule for Mr. Waters was impossible to carry out within the allotted time period, even when one was not additionally delivering the required vocabulary project lesson and doing the reading probe requirement. In this regard one of the individuals asked to assist Mr. Waters in the 2005-2006 school year was Donna Haff, of the FDLRS staff. Ms. Haff, in working with Mr. Waters, tried to develop a better means for him to address the RM scheduling problem. She began that effort by "model teaching" his scripted RM classes in order to better understand his problem. This means that she simply tried to teach the RM class herself to see if it could be done within the mandatory curriculum and time period in which Mr. Waters was required to do it. Despite her extensive experience and familiarity with RM curriculum and her experience teaching it as a trainer for teachers, Ms. Haff was unable to complete the RM lesson in the time allotted to Mr. Waters, even without performing the mandatory new vocabulary program or any reading fluency probe requirements. She concluded that his RM schedule could not reasonably be carried out. She informed Ms. Huckaby of that conclusion. Ms. Huckaby expressed her frustration to Ms. Haff concerning this problem by asking, "Do you realize how much time we have put into this?" Ms. Huckaby decided not to act on Ms. Haff's advice and decided not to make any changes in Mr. Waters' 2005-2006 RM schedule. On or about June 3, 2005, Ms. Huckaby imposed an improvement notice on Mr. Waters, listing items in his instruction and teaching management that she felt needed improvement and concomitantly imposing a 90-day probationary period running from a date in September through early December 2005. Making only two observations of Mr. Waters' teaching herself, she relied upon reports of Margot Palazesi's 13 observations of Mr. Waters' classroom and teaching during the 2005-2006 school year from generally September through December. Ms. Palazesi's primary expertise, however, was in IEP compliance, IDEA compliance and grant funding compliance. She has a great deal of training in exceptional student education including a PHD degree, but she was not trained or qualified to work within and with regard to Leon County's performance observation and assessment for teacher evaluation, as either an administrator or a classroom mentor. Ms. Palazesi was unfamiliar with the lesson plan requirements at Oakridge and with the CHAMPS behavioral program requirements. She acknowledged that she understood Mr. Waters had the CHAMPS program implemented in the behavioral management aspect of his class and teaching, but she had little familiarity with what it entailed. She did acknowledge, however, that he had an award system for behavior and academic performance for his students built into and actively followed in his classroom. Ms. Palazesi also was not certified in reading and had not taught a reading mastery class in 20 years. Nonetheless, she made 8 of her 13 observations of Mr. Waters' teaching in his RM class. She did not have any understanding of the impossible double-scripted reading class schedule for his two reading groups that he was required by Ms. Huckaby to execute within the 90 minute time block. Through her interaction with Mr. Waters she came to understand from him that there was more material in the double-scripted reading curriculum than could be delivered in the 90 minute period, as Ms. Haff's testimony also showed. Ms. Palazesi, nonetheless, criticized his lecture teaching style, without acknowledging that that teaching method might have been effectively imposed on Mr. Waters in large part due to the impractical time constraints placed upon his delivery of the reading program, the vocabulary requirement and the reading fluency assessment requirement, imposed on him by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Palazesi also noted, early in her observations, that Mr. Waters did not, in her view, engage in a review of material previously instructed, as, for instance, the day before, or inform the students what they would be learning in the lesson that day. Concerning one or more of her October observances, however, she acknowledged in her testimony that he had done that or started doing that. Moreover, one of her notations was acknowledged by her to be inaccurate in that she criticized him for not doing an introductory portion to his lesson, but then acknowledged that she had arrived some 10 minutes late, missing that portion of his lesson for that day. She also acknowledged that he was receptive to following her suggestions for improvements she thought should be made in his classroom management, in terms of assigning student desks, changing the arrangement of the room as to where a work table was placed, etc., and he did so. Ms. Palazesi also noted that he had a very good rapport with his students, and that his students behaved well and did their work in his classroom. They were on task much of the time. Although she criticized him for departing from his lesson plan on her first observation, in later observations she acknowledged he appeared to adhere more to his lesson plan. Ms. Palazesi was ostensibly dispatched to Mr. Waters' classroom to provide him technical ESE department-type assistance. However, she primarily engaged in making suggestions concerning ways that Mr. Waters could improve otherwise acceptable lessons and lesson plans and make improvements to his classroom management and the physical layout of his classroom. She acknowledges in her testimony that this was an exercise that she could have undertaken in any teacher's classroom and instructional regimen, and could have found ways to suggest improvements. Her suggestions, however, to the extent they were criticisms, appeared to have been relied on, and, inferentially, used to corroborate Ms. Huckaby's negative findings. During the second part of the 2004-2005 school year and the first half 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters used computer technology in his classroom. He received advice from Ms. Donna Haff on how to incorporate it as a relevant and exciting way to reinforce his course curriculum and began doing so. In each of the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, he used power point technology in the form of game show question and answer formats ("Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Jeopardy," and "Hollywood Squares/Tic Tac Toe"). He also employed other types of computer technology in his classroom on a regular basis, whether or not they were also noted in his lesson plans or were specifically observed by Ms. Huckaby, Ms. McFarland, or Ms. Palazesi. He demonstrated an ability to incorporate technology into his classroom instruction at least as effectively as most of his colleagues. Despite this fact and Ms. Huckaby's own praise for Mr. Waters' use of power point technology as a reinforcement tool in her December 14, 2005, observation, Ms. Huckaby still asserted to the Superintendent of the District in her letter recommendation for his termination that Mr. Waters did not adequately incorporate technology into his teaching and claimed that the December 14, 2005, lesson where she observed his use of technology marked "the first and only time he has integrated technology in the teaching and learning process." If Ms. Huckaby had made adequate observations of his teaching and his classes, or had even adequately conferred with Ms. Haff, she would have known of the extent of his use of technology in the classroom (or else perhaps she knew it and disregarded it). This statement to the Superintendent is one of the indicators of the level of bias Ms. Huckaby bore towards Mr. Waters. Most of the ESE teachers, including Ms. George, Mr. Waters, and Ms. Wacksman customarily do not employ computerized grading of their students because of the unique, singular nature of each ESE student's problems, learning styles, abilities, and each ESE student's goals and the varying curriculum and social needs of each ESE student. These and the other individualized differences among ESE students render a hand-written old fashioned grade book the most effective way to make a record of each student's progress toward that student's IEP- codified goals. Ms. Huckaby gave Mr. Waters a negative rating in the area of technology use partly because he did not use a computerized grading system, but neither did any other ESE teacher at Oakridge. Mr. Waters was singled out for criticism for that aspect of his teaching and the others were not. All teachers at Oakridge, particularly ESE teachers, during both the relevant school years, worked under increasing lesson plan requirements and student performance monitoring and documentation requirements and changes, as well as curriculum changes and related paperwork and time constraints. These were very stressful and no doubt were related in a significant part to the fact that the school had slipped from a "C" rating to a "D" rating on Ms. Huckaby's watch as principal. This no doubt caused significant tension and anxiety for all concerned on the instructional staff and in the administration. Only Mr. Waters, however, was held strictly accountable to all deadlines and all aspects of the burdensome documentation requirements and time constraints imposed during those two school years. In the context of his limited planning time, the excessive student contact time scheduled for him in 2005-2006, the delays he encountered in getting A3 IEP System training (some of which were self-inflicted), the difficulties encountered in gaining sufficient access to the conference room where the cume folders were maintained in order to comply with progress monitoring requirements, as well as the repeated schedule changes to his 2004-2005 assignment schedule and the time constraints of his 2005-2006 reading mastery schedule, put the Respondent in a position where it was impossible for him to timely and fully comply with every requirement imposed on him. Ms. Huckaby's close monitoring of the Respondent, as compared to other teachers, under such circumstances, is reflective of her bias in favor of a recommendation of termination. It impelled her, Ms. McFarland and Ms. Palazesi to document and exaggerate the significance of every minor error or omission that involved Mr. Waters. Arranging for ESE meetings, monitoring and complying with deadlines related to IEP's, monitoring ESE consult situations and completing all IEP-related paperwork are the responsibilities of the assigned ESE teacher. The carrying out of these tasks, however, often involves frequent communications among, and timely cooperation with several other people, such as other ESE teachers, regular classroom teachers, school administrators, the District Staffing Specialist, and the ESE students' parents. Mistakes, delays, and miscommunications concerning these ESE teacher responsibilities will occur and while they are not desirable they are not unusual. When such problems arise they are normally corrected by all persons involved as quickly and cooperatively as possible without resort to blame. Although Ms. Petrick became critical of paperwork problems and delays Mr. Waters was responsible for in the last half 2004-2005 school year, Oakridge school lost no federal funding because of them nor was it shown that any students suffered in academic or behavioral progress because of them. It is noteworthy that the IEP-related deficiencies concerning Mr. Waters began to arise only in the second half of the 2004- 2005 school year around the same time that critical memoranda from both Ms. Huckaby and Ms. McFarland were becoming the norm. In any event, Mr. Waters improved in these areas in the 2005-2006 school year. Mr. Waters received little of the help promised him in the September 2005 revised improvement notice document. He did not have a national board-certified mentor assigned him for 2005- 2006, did not get to meet with consultants from the Reading Mastery Plus Program, "Open Court," the "Great Leaps," or the Harcourt Brace Mathematics Programs. He did not meet with anyone from the Florida Inclusion Network. The administration did not provide adequate or meaningful assistance to him in either school year, but rather denied, delayed answering, or ignored his specific requests for more planning time, model lesson plans which would comply with Ms. Huckaby's lesson plan changes and requirements, relief from his impossible RM schedule for 2005- 2006, and his request for a transfer to another school. Instead of providing practical help to him (with the exception of Dr. Adams), the District focused its "assistance" mostly upon sending more staff and district employees to observe him and provide resulting reports to Ms. Huckaby. (Ms. Smith and Ms. Sands in 2004-2005 and Ms. Palazesi in 2005-2006.) During the 2005-2006 school year Mr. Waters work was being scrutinized over the 90 day performance improvement probationary period imposed by Ms. Huckaby which ended on December 8, 2005. During that time, however, his classroom activities were observed only once by Ms. Huckaby, on November 8, 2005. Ms. Huckaby's second observation of him took place nearly a week after the end of the probation period and was two and one- half hours long. It resulted in a critical observation report based primarily upon the last third of that classroom time when Mr. Waters had a formal lesson plan to take his writing class students to a "writing boot camp" session to be attended by all fourth grade teachers and students. Ms. Huckaby, however, refused to let him follow his lesson plan for that day's writing class and insisted that he teach the group there in his room. It was the last day his writing class would meet before the Christmas break which is why he planned to let them go to the writing boot camp with students from other classes on that day. There were no lesson plans for the rest of that week that he could adapt to the remaining one- third of his class that day, with the students unexpectedly present because of Ms. Huckaby's order; it was the last day of school before the Christmas break, and lesson plans for the next day or other days remaining in the week were thus unnecessary. Nevertheless, Ms. Huckaby made negative comments concerning allegedly inadequate planning for his writing group for the class that day after she concluded her observation. Ms. Huckaby had access to Mr. Waters' lesson plans for his December 14, 2005, class and before her observations that day. She had previously reviewed his lesson plans while observing his class to be sure he was precisely following those plans as he had often been instructed to do. She no doubt reviewed his plans for the December 14th lesson and had to have seen the writing boot camp entry. Nevertheless, she refused to let his students attend the writing boot camp. It was by this means that she was able to document a purportedly inadequately planned writing class activity for that day and then relied upon those negative comments in support of her termination recommendation to the superintendent which, inferentially, she had already decided to write. Ms. Huckaby only observed Mr. Waters classroom activities one time during the probationary period. Her only other observation of his classroom activities occurred on the December 14, 2005, occasion, approximately a week after the probation period ended. School administrators, however, are required to periodically evaluate and apprise teachers of their progress during such a 90-day probationary period, which Ms. Huckaby did not do.1/ The Respondent was confronted with a significant increase in time consuming paperwork/reporting requirements lesson plan requirements and the other burdens depicted in the above findings of fact, which Ms. Huckaby placed upon him. Other teachers and ESE teachers had to contend with some of these as well, although to a lesser extent and with less micro- management by Ms. Huckaby. Nonetheless, the Respondent made significant improvements in teaching methods, lesson plan quality and organization, classroom organization, the variety of planned classroom activities and his technology-supported lesson delivery methods. Mr. Waters was effective enough in his teaching and had made sufficient progress so that he received the second highest number of votes for "teacher of the year" from Oakridge's faculty and staff. He thus only ranked behind one revered teacher who had received the award before and who had more recently received the most votes, but declined the award in order to allow someone else to get it. Mr. Waters complied with all reasonable requests made of him, by and large, and in those areas of less than acceptable compliance made the necessary improvements in his compliance. He satisfactorily executed his job duties in both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years as long as he was at Oakridge. Notwithstanding those improvements in performance, Ms. Huckaby continued to evaluate him as if he had made no improvements, pronouncing in June 2005 the results she had angrily promised him in their October 2004 meeting. She re- confirmed that negative assessment in December 2005 with her termination recommendation, made with only one observation by her during the actual period of his 90-day probationary status. Mr. Waters' teaching and classroom management performance in 2004-2005 as well as 2005-2006 and Ms. Huckaby's and Ms. McFarland's criticism of it, culminating in the termination recommendation by Ms. Huckaby, did not result and was not predicated on his students' FCAT scores. Ms. Huckaby admitted as much in her testimony as to both relevant years. The Petitioner attempted, in its rebuttal case only, to introduce test-related evidence that students of Mr. Waters in the 2004-2005 school year did not do well on standardized tests. That exhibit, and the information it was prepared from, however, were not made available at the hearing, during discovery, were not disclosed in the pre-hearing stipulation, and were not disclosed as a reason for Mr. Waters' performance criticism and termination by any charging document, notice or pleading by the Petitioner made a part of this record. The Petitioner in essence was using or attempting to use the proffered Exhibit 46 to buttress its case-in-chief because it was not rebuttal of anything raised or offered in the Respondent's case. Therefore, it was excluded on the basis that it constituted improper rebuttal evidence and, moreover, because of the non-disclosure problem referenced above, was not admissible on due process of law and "notice pleading" principles. Moreover, the information included in the charts in Petitioner's proffered Exhibit 46 is misleading with respect to comparative student progress issues by teacher. There is confusion as to which student was the pupil of Mr. Waters or another ESE teacher or teachers. It is difficult to determine based upon that exhibit, and the testimony proffered concerning it, an accurate comparison of student progress by the students depicted under Mr. Waters's teaching performance versus that of other teachers. Further, the "Writes Upon Request" chart comparison contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 48 and the testimony related to it, was clearly not a reason used or considered in lodging performance-related criticism against Mr. Waters or ultimately in the decision to terminate him. It clearly could not have been considered until several months after Mr. Waters had been removed from the Oakridge school. Had those Writes Upon Request chart results been considered by Ms. Huckaby in the context of this case, they would not serve as preponderant evidence of sub- standard performance by Mr. Waters, considering the other evidence of the circumstances and abilities of his students in conjunction with his performance. Mr. Waters is at minimum an adequate teacher and in some aspects of his performance a superior teacher, as, for instance, in his ability to advance his students' performance in writing and in terms of his ability to motivate his students and establish a good rapport, with an interest in learning, in his students. His classroom management skills, instructional methods and classroom demeanor fall within the parameters of acceptable performance and behavior as a teacher and an ESE teacher. He consistently and successfully relied upon his own behavior management reward system for his students, employed the Champs Program in his classroom and was successful at motivating his students to enjoy learning. In demonstrating a very good rapport with his students, he always created a classroom environment of mutual respect that is conducive to student learning and his students were learning. His overall performance for both school years at issue was objectively satisfactory despite Ms. Huckaby's biased assessment of his performance during those years and in her ultimate termination recommendation. In fact, the excessive number of areas of criticism by Ms. Huckaby concerning Mr. Waters job performance made it quite difficult to demonstrate mastery of every criticized area, much less to demonstrate it all in only two formal observation attempts by Ms. Huckaby. Ms. Donna George is a 21-year career ESE teacher. She has a master's degree in the areas of learning disabilities, emotional handicap, and varying exceptionalities. She has spent 13 of her teaching years at Oakridge school. She is the ESE Department Team Leader at Oakridge, as well as the "technology contact" teacher, who trains and assists other teachers in implementation of technology programs and equipment at Oakridge. She assists in teacher technology training. She is also a National Board Certified ESE Teacher. Ms. George is thus a leader on the staff at Oakridge. She has observed in ESE meetings and in school-wide faculty meetings, throughout Ms. Huckaby's tenure as Principal, that Ms. Huckaby has an autocratic, dictatorial management style, and an aversion to allowing commentary or questions regarding her policies, directives or programs at Oakridge. Ms. Huckaby has demonstrated little tolerance for questions or comments she perceives to reflect less than complete agreement with her positions or policies. Indeed, although Ms. George is the ESE team leader, she seldom has asked questions or sought clarifications of Ms. Huckaby during such meetings, because of her fear that she would be yelled at, treated with disdain, anger or even with reprisal. Such has also been the experience of Ms. Wacksman and others. Ms. George established that Ms. Huckaby's management style had driven many good teachers away from Oakridge. A survey by the district staff concerning long-term teacher retention rates showed that Oakridge had the lowest retention rate at 17 percent. The next lowest school in the survey had approximately 30 percent retention rate. This survey encompassed the period beginning with the 1999-2000 school year to present. Ms. George observed that Ms. Huckaby often responded to questions or comments from Mr. Waters with both verbal and non-verbal ques, such as eye rolling or turning away or other mannerisms, that generally showed disdain for his questions or his opinions. Ms. George unequivocally opined upon cross- examination by the Petitioner that Ms. Huckaby clearly does not like having Mr. Waters on her staff and was "out to get him." According to Ms. George, Mr. Waters asked questions more frequently than others in faculty meetings, but his questions generally were reasonable ones. He apparently also would attempt to make humorous comments, at times which often irritated Ms. Huckaby and other teachers as well. It is likely that some of his motivation to question Ms. Huckaby and her motivation to treat him with disdain, stemmed from their strained relationship starting with the student disciplinary incident described above. In any event, Ms. George's testimony is accepted in establishing that Ms. Huckaby had a bias in favor of removing the Respondent from her staff, which colored her judgment in making many of her criticisms of his teaching, which long pre-dated his probationary period and which, along with her scant actual observations of his instructional prowess, caused some of his improvements to be overlooked or disregarded, and which caused him to be evaluated more critically than his colleagues as to some performance requirements. In fact, the preponderant evidence establishes that in an objective sense his performance as a teacher, although not flawless, was acceptable and improved in a number of areas. As found in more detail above, in consideration of the circumstances imposed on him by the school administration, in his capacity as a resource teacher, with the time and schedule constraints and disadvantages that status entails, he performed in at least a satisfactory way in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 years at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Leon County School Board re-instating the Respondent to a similar special education teaching position, with reimbursement for lost wages and benefits, in a manner so as to be "made whole" from the date of termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a school monitor on the grounds alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed September 5, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4B of Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Petitioner employed Respondent as a school security monitor and assigned her to work at Horace Mann, which is a public school located within the school district of Miami-Dade County, and, as will be discussed below, to a temporary duty location. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . In the event a superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement. Respondent’s employment with Petitioner began on April 12, 1993. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) collective bargaining unit. On October 22, 2001, Metro-Dade Police arrested Respondent on charges of aggravated battery and violation of probation. Respondent remained incarcerated from the date of her arrest until May 15, 2002. Respondent admitted that she had engaged in a fight while she was on probation and that she had thereby violated the terms of her probation. Respondent did not report to work between October 22, 2001, and May 15, 2002. Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner dated December 3, 2001, and addressed "to whom it may concern." The letter reflects that Respondent had previously entered a plea to a charge of domestic violence for which she had been placed on probation. It also reflected that that she was in jail after violating the conditions of her probation by having engaged in a fight. Respondent's letter represented that she would be released from jail on February 4, 2002, and makes it clear that she wanted to retain her employment, if possible. Carolyn Blake was the principal of Horace Mann at the times material to this proceeding. Ms. Blake learned of Respondent’s arrest within days of its occurrence. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Blake forwarded her home telephone number to Respondent and sent Respondent a message to call her collect from jail so that she and Respondent could discuss Respondent’s employment intentions. On December 26, 2001, Respondent placed a collect call to Ms. Blake at Ms. Blake’s home. Ms. Blake accepted the collect call from Respondent. During the ensuing telephone conversation Respondent told Ms. Blake that she would be released from jail by February 4, 2002, and that she hoped to return to work. Ms. Blake told Respondent she should consider resigning from her employment with Petitioner because of the number of days she had been absent without authorized leave. On January 14, 2002, Ms. Blake attempted to communicate with Respondent through a memorandum sent to Respondent's home address. The memorandum reflected that Respondent had been absent from her worksite since October 19, 2001, and that the absences had impeded the effective operation of the worksite. The memorandum requested that Respondent select from among four options and to notify her worksite within three days of the date of the notice regarding her employment intentions. The four options were to (1) notify the worksite of the date she intended to return to work; (2) apply for leave of absence; (3) resign; or (4) retire. The January 14, 2002, memorandum, further advised Respondent that her absences would continue to be unauthorized until she communicated directly with Ms. Blake as to her employment intentions. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. On March 11, 2002, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record (CFR) scheduled for March 28, 2002, at the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to address, among other things, Respondent’s arrest; her violation of School Board rules dealing with employee conduct; her excessive absenteeism; and her future employment status with Petitioner. The notice that instructed Respondent to attend the CFR was mailed to Respondent's home address. On March 28, 2002, Respondent was still incarcerated, and she did not attend the scheduled CFR scheduled for that day at OPS. On March 28, 2002, a CFR was held at OPS in Respondent’s absence. At the CFR held on March 28, 2002, Respondent’s employment history with the School Board was reviewed, including the number of days that Respondent had been absent from her worksite, with special emphasis on the number of days she had been absent without authorized leave. On March 28, 2002, Ms. Blake recommended that Respondent’s employment with the School Board be terminated due to Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and because of the adverse impact Respondent’s absenteeism was having on the operation of the school site. As of March 28, 2002, Ms. Blake had received no communication from Respondent since their telephone conversation on December 26, 2001. Despite having Ms. Blake’s home telephone number and knowing that she would accept a collect call, Respondent made no effort to contact Ms. Blake after Respondent learned that she would not be released from jail on February 4, 2002. By notice dated April 23, 2002, Respondent was directed to appear on May 8, 2002, at a meeting at OPS to address the employment action that had been recommended by Ms. Blake. This written directive was sent by mail to Respondent's home address. As of May 8, 2002, Respondent was still incarcerated. Because of her incarceration, Respondent did not attend the meeting and had not reported to her worksite. On May 8, 2002, the scheduled meeting was held at OPS. As a result of the meeting, the Superintendent recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment and scheduled the recommendation to be considered by the School Board at its meeting of June 19, 2002. On May 16, 2002, the day after she was released from jail on May 15, 2002, Respondent called Ms. Blake, who instructed her to meet with an administrator at the regional office. Respondent complied with that directive and was ordered by the administrator to report to an alternative work site pending the School Board’s action on the recommendation to terminate her employment. Respondent refused to comply with the order to report to an alternate worksite because she did not want to jeopardize her claim for unemployment compensation benefits. From October 22, 2001, through May 15, 2002, Respondent was incarcerated and was absent from work without authority. From May 16, 2002, through June 19, 2002, Respondent was absent without authority and either failed or refused to report to work. For the school year 2001-2002, Respondent accumulated 142 unauthorized absences. On June 19, 2002, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against Respondent on the following grounds: excessive absenteeism and/or abandonment of position; willful neglect of duty; and violation of School Board rules dealing with employee conduct. Respondent’s family received Ms. Blake’s memorandum and the notices of scheduled meetings that were mailed by Petitioner to Respondent’s home address while Respondent was incarcerated. Respondent testified that she did not see the memorandum and notices until after she was released from jail. There was no justification for Respondent’s failure to contact Ms. Blake after Respondent learned she would not be released from jail on February 4, 2002. There was no justification for Respondent's failure to attempt to comply with Petitioner's leave policies. There was no justification for Respondent’s refusal to report to the alternate worksite as instructed by the administrator at the regional office.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of act and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of excessive absenteeism, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty as alleged in Counts I and II of the Notice of Specific Charges. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain Respondent's suspension without pay and terminate her employment as a school monitor. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 2002.
