Findings Of Fact Ms. Osteen is employed by the School Board as a content staffing specialist in the Exceptional Student Education (E.S.E.) program. Her duties include the placement and monitoring of students in the Leesburg area that are identified as exceptional students. Ms. Osteen is responsible for declaring she student's eligibility for the program and for effectuating placement of those students. At times, in her duties as a staffing specialist, Ms. Osteen determines the number of hours of instructions that E.S.E. students are to receive and prepares individual educational plans (IEPs). As an additional duty, Ms. Osteen is employed as a homebound teacher, carrying out those tasks after the completion of her normal work day which is from 8:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. She was the homebound teacher assigned to William (Billy) Vickery during February and March, 1988. Homebound teachers in the Lake County School System are compensated by submitting a monthly time sheet to the Exceptional Student Education Office. They are paid on an hourly basis cumulative over the month based upon the number of hours actually worked. Payment is only for instructional time with the student, not driving or commuting time. NOTE: PAGE 4 OF THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER IS UNAVAILABLE The composite of the four (4) different F.T.E. weeks determines the money a particular child earns in the system. Instruction of Billy Vickery by Ms. Osteen from February 17, 1988, through February 29, 1988, would have no impact on the F.T.E. count for the Lake County School System because it was after the count and the window period. There is no window period after the F.T.E. week. The entire staff is notified of the F.T.E. periods as they are published near the beginning of the school year. Teachers typically are not, however, involved in reporting the F.T.E. Nancy Vickery, Billy Vickery's mother, made a complaint to the Superintendent's office, in early February concerning Ms. Osteen's performance. Ms. Vickery explained that her concern was the amount of time Billy was receiving in homebound instruction. Ms. Vickery knew that Billy was to receive eleven (11) hours from Ms. Osteen weekly. After Ms. Vickery's conference with the school personnel, she began keeping, at their request, a record of the amount of time Ms. Osteen actually spent instructing Billy. Subsequently, Ms. Vickery created a summary of her time records and submitted it to the School Board. From February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported that Ms. Osteen spent approximately two (2) hours in homebound instruction of Billy. From February 17, 1988 through February 29, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported approximately three (3) hours by spent by Ms. Osteen in homebound instruction of Billy Vickery. After Ms. Vickery's complaint, the School Board hired an independent investigator to make a surveillance report of the number of hours that Ms. Osteen was in fact at the Vickery residence from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. The surveillance report showed that Ms. Osteen spent two (2) hours and fifty-seven (57) minutes at the Vickery home from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen submitted a time record to the School Board indicating that she had worked a total of forty-four (44) hours during February in the homebound program of instruction of Billy Vickery. Ms. Osteen claimed eleven (11) hours during the week of February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, and nineteen (19) hours from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen admitted that she did not put in the hours claimed. In fact, she also admitted not working during the F.T.E. week, February 8, 1988, through February 12, 1988, and not giving Billy Vickery eleven (11) hours a week instruction from February 1, 1988, through February 17, 1988. The homebound teacher keeps a daily planning book, an attendance register, and a copy of the individual education plan as well as time sheets. Ms. Osteen conceded that homebound teachers are required to keep an attendance register, but that she used her register as a grade book instead. Ms. Osteen claimed that she used her plan book as an attendance registry, but acknowledged that it did not accurately reflect the days that Billy was instructed. Ms. Osteen did not keep an attendance record. Ms. Osteen's plan book is filled in retroactively, meaning that she makes entries for what she had done with Billy, as opposed to planning what she will do. The plan book does not accurately reflect the times or dates spent on the material and Ms. Osteen conceded she filled in the February plan in March with work done partly in March. Mr. Osteen made retroactive entries in the registry, coordinating it with the plan book, and the registry did not reflect what happened on any particular day. Ms. Osteen's testimony was confusing and contradictory regarding the actual instruction given Billy, especially in math. From the records presented and Ms. Osteen's testimony, it cannot be determined what actual instruction hours were given to Billy. Eight (8) witnesses testified either that Ms. Osteen's reputation was that of a truthful person or that they would believe her. Ms. Osteen was described as meticulous, conscientious, thorough and as one who follows the book. Ms. Osteen expected to be paid for the time that she turned in for February claiming that she planned to complete the work and make up the time before pay day. Ms. Osteen claimed that she did not intend to defraud the school system of any money. Ms. Vickery kept a time record for Ms. Osteen's visits to the Vickery home from March 1, 1988, through March 11, 1988, noting that Ms. Osteen made one visit for four (4) minutes and one other visit to have Ms. Vickery sign the time sheet. Ms. Osteen disputed Ms. Vickery's records, claiming that in March she had made up eight (8) hours of the time turned in for February. However, even Ms. Osteen admitted that by the end of the first week in March, she would have owed Billy the eleven (11) additional hours he was entitled to for that week. According to Ms. Osteen's own computations, she still owed Billy ten (10) hours from February. Thus, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was behind twenty-one (21) hours in instruction by Ms. Osteen's own admission. Ms. Osteen's computations are, however, incredible in view of the surveillance report and testimony of Mrs. Vickery. In fact, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was owed at least sixteen (16) hours of instruction for the time period of February 11, 1988 through February 29, 1988, additional hours for the F.T.E. week, and eleven (11) hours for the first seven (7) days of March. The March time records refute Ms. Osteen's claim that she intended to make up the February time. She continued instead to fall further behind with the hours of instruction due. Ms. Osteen attempted to explain her reporting of hours not spent with Billy Vickery by claiming that if she had not, the child would have been denied his entitlement and the County would have lost its F.T.E. There was no basis in fact for these assertions. Ms. Osteen may have believed this, but was incorrect. Ms. Vickery kept a child during the month of February that was ill with Scarletina. Ms. Vickery also conceded that Sandy had illnesses during the time that she taught Billy and had advised her that Ms. Osteen's son had pink eye. However, illness is not relevant to the issues of falsification of the time or attendance records. Ms. Osteen claimed that there was precedence for her falsification of the records, including the fact that she had falsified the time records before for Billy Vickery as well as for another child. Further, Ms. Osteen claimed that School Board personnel falsified records all of the time. The Lake County School Supervisor of Exceptional Student Education conceded that a teacher on occasion is allowed to swap time, but that the practice was not encouraged. Such a request must be written and signed by both the teacher and the supervisor. That was not done in this case. Homebound teachers sometimes extend the time sheet forms to include Saturdays and Sundays as well as holidays in order to accurately report hours worked. Homebound teachers are encouraged to perform the homebound instruction on Monday through Friday and to consider the educational principles that it is better to do small chunks at a time rather than one extended day on a Saturday. Ms. Osteen had turned in a time sheet the last day of school before Christmas vacation reflecting hours not given at that time for a previous student. Additionally, in 1987, Ms. Osteen had been unable to complete the last week in May for Billy Vickery but turned in the time sheet claiming the hours as she had in the past. Ms. Osteen stated that she went back in June to give the additional instruction and that this procedure was approved by her supervisor. Apparently, it was common practice in the Lake County School System for IEPs to be corrected by back-dating, obtaining signatures at a later date, and placing check marks in appropriate places. These corrections were made to reflect what actually had happened. Information known not to comport with the facts was not, however, placed on forms. While it is a common practice for employees to make corrections in forms, it is not an accepted practice to create false statements on forms or records. Witnesses testifying concerning record corrections consistently drew a distinction between falsifying documents and making corrections to reflect what had actually occurred. No falsification of documents was reported.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lake County enter a Final Order finding Sandra Osteen guilty of the violations set forth above and dismissing her from her employment in the school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2029 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE COUNTY Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-16(1- 16); 18-39(17-38); 41(39); 42 & 43(40); and 44(41). Proposed finding of fact 17 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 40, 45 and 46 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, SANDRA OSTEEN Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(1 & 2); 7(8); 10(17); 12 & 13(32); 19 & 20(38); and 22(39). Proposed findings of fact 3-6 and 11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 14-18, and 23-26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of facts 27 and 28 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter S. McLin, III, Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1357 Leesburg, Florida 32749-1357 Richard H. Langley, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 188 Clermont, Florida 32711 Freddie G. Garner, Superintendent The School Board of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 ================================================================= SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to place Respondent, a classroom teacher, on administrative leave without pay from November 20, 2013, through the remainder of the 2013- 2014 school year due to Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, as alleged in the December 19, 2013, Statement of Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at PSLHS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the District for approximately 20 years. Respondent has a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33. As a classroom teacher, Respondent is charged with instructing high school students. Regular attendance is considered by Petitioner to be an essential function of the position of classroom teacher. Pursuant to Board Policy 6.549(1)(a), Respondent was entitled to four days of sick leave as of the first day of employment of each school year and thereafter earned one sick day for each month of employment, for a maximum of ten sick days per school year. 2012-2013 School Year During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, Respondent was assigned to teach intensive math classes to students who struggle to pass required state exams required for graduation. Hargadine, in coordination with Petitioner’s Human Resources Department, directed Assistant Principal April Rogers (Rogers) to meet with Respondent on October 2, 2012, to address Respondent’s pattern of absenteeism and the impact it was having on students, and to explore the possibility of accommodations if his frequent absences were caused by a health condition. At least one student asked to be removed from Respondent’s class due to the frequency of Respondent’s absences. As directed, on October 2, 2012, Rogers met with Respondent and discussed Petitioner’s concerns that Respondent’s absences resulted in his students missing math instruction for 39 percent of their scheduled classes. Respondent was notified that he had already exhausted his available sick leave and he had not properly filled out leave requests in a timely manner. During this meeting, Respondent acknowledged that his absences had a negative impact on students. This conference was memorialized in a Summary of Conference dated October 2, 2012, issued to Respondent from Rogers. After the October 2, 2012, meeting, Respondent was also absent on October 16 through 19, 2012. On October 23, 2012, Rogers issued a Letter of Concern to Respondent detailing his continued excessive absenteeism and failure to timely request leave. The letter advised that Respondent’s absenteeism amounted to 17 of 42 instructional days and equated to 40 percent of lost instructional time for Respondent’s students. This letter reiterated that Respondent’s absences directly affect his students’ educational success. In addition to Respondent disrupting the continuity of the classroom by failing to attend work, Respondent also failed to supply adequate lesson plans and/or provide for student instruction while he took unapproved leave. On several occasions, Hargadine or her assistant principal had to create or add to the lesson plans to enable a substitute to teach Respondent’s classes. Respondent’s absenteeism and lack of proper notice of his absences resulted in his students being “taught” by individuals who did not have a college degree in mathematics, or even education, as some of these individuals were substitutes (who only need a high school diploma), para-educators, and even clerical workers. When staff members were required to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, it negatively impacted both students and co-workers. For example, if a clerical worker or para-educator was called to provide coverage for Respondent’s classes, their own work would have to wait and they would not be able to complete their own specific job duties in order to ensure coverage for Respondent’s students. After receiving the October 23, 2012, Letter of Concern, Respondent was also absent on October 31, November 1, November 2, November 5, and November 6, 2012. As the assistant superintendent for Human Resources, Ranew assists site-based administrators (principals and assistant principals) concerning staff discipline and adherence to policies and procedures. Rogers requested Ranew’s assistance in addressing Respondent’s absenteeism. On November 6, 2012, Ranew issued a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism. This letter from Ranew reminded Respondent of the importance of him submitting leave requests because his school would not know of his absence even if he properly requested a substitute teacher using the AESOP (computerized) system. By this letter, Ranew also attempted to initiate the “interactive process” required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although Respondent had not identified himself as a “qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA, his excessive absenteeism suggested that he might need an accommodation if his absenteeism was being caused by a medical condition. The November 6 letter stated, “to the extent that your absenteeism is being caused by medical condition, the District may be agreeable to allowing you to take a leave [of absence] to accommodate such a condition, if that would help. In the event you realize that you are unable to regularly be at work due to a medical condition, you should consider promptly requesting an extended leave of absence (e.g., for this semester or the school year), and the District would be willing to consider such a request.” To determine Respondent’s potential eligibility for an accommodation pursuant to the ADA, Ranew specifically requested that Respondent’s doctor provide documentation clarifying: “a) any specific condition/impairment that Respondent has, as well as the cause; b) any restrictions/limitations on Respondent’s work duties as a teacher; c) the expected duration for each limitation or whether it is permanent; d) whether the condition is controllable with the use of medication, and if yes: what is the mitigating effect of this medication; and whether Respondent could fully perform his job duties, with the aid of such medication.” In response to Ranew’s letter, Respondent provided the District with a doctor’s note from Dr. Kenneth Palestrant dated November 7, 2012, stating that the majority of Respondent’s visits to the clinics occur between the months of January through May and September through December (effectively during the calendar school year) and speculated that Respondent “may” be exposed to allergens in the school building or in his classroom. Dr. Palestrant explained that Respondent was being treated with antibiotics and allergy medications and recommended Respondent receive an allergy test from an allergist to identify the specific allergens. Dr. Palestrant found that other than the potential environmental exposure to an allergen, he found “no reason [Respondent] cannot perform his full duties as a school teacher as he has no impairment and the medications he has been given have no mitigating effect upon his performance.” After receiving Dr. Palestrant’s November 7, 2012, note, and after receiving an e-mail from Respondent in which he wondered if something in his classroom might be causing his medical condition, Ranew asked Sanders to inspect Respondent’s classroom. Sanders’ job duties would require him to facilitate any remedial action with regard to Respondent’s classroom, should one be needed. In response to this request, Respondent’s classroom was inspected but nothing of concern was discovered within the room. Nonetheless, the classroom was sanitized using two methods: with an ozone machine to kill bacteria and other germs, including mold, and also with a fogger using disinfectant that kills microorganisms, bacteria, and mold, as a precaution. On November 15, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew, informing her that he was “being evaluated by an Allergist, and will be setting up a colonoscopy per doctor’s orders Tuesday, [November 20, 2012].” On November 15, 2012, Ranew sent an e-mail to Respondent requesting that he provide her with an allergist report when complete. On November 16, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Ranew in which he discussed beginning to take a new allergy medicine, and promised to fax the allergist report to her. Ranew issued a letter to Respondent dated December 21, 2012, advising him that she had yet to receive an allergist report, again requesting such a report or medical clarification. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter also reminded Respondent that regular, consistent, punctual attendance, and working a full assigned workday are essential functions of his position as a classroom teacher. Although Respondent did not request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), when he failed to provide the requested allergist report five weeks after Ranew requested it, and Respondent continued his pattern of excessive absenteeism, the District advised that it intended to designate his absences as FMLA-qualifying. Ranew’s December 21, 2012, letter to Respondent again requested clarification from Respondent’s doctor/allergist, with a focus on “whether there is a modification or adjustment to the work environment that will enable you to perform the essential functions of [your] position (classroom teacher).” Respondent was told, “[i]n the event that you believe that something such as trees, grass, or something else near your current classroom/school may be causing your condition, which has resulted in many absences, the [School] District is willing to consider a request to transfer you to another location.” Notably, Respondent did not provide any information from a health care provider which suggested any work modification would enable him to perform the essential functions of his job, nor did he take advantage of Petitioner’s offer of a transfer to another location. In response, Respondent emailed Ranew on December 29, 2012, advising that his allergy test would be conducted on January 3, 2013, and he would provide the results to her as soon as he received them. Respondent also expressed interest in obtaining information regarding short-term disability leave. On January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that if he desired to take leave in connection with his private insurance company’s short-term disability policy, she requested that he advise her “as soon as possible as the [School] District may be able to accommodate you with an extended leave.” There is no evidence that Respondent pursued Ranew’s offer for an accommodation in connection with short-term disability. By letter dated January 8, 2013, Ranew advised Respondent that she still had not received a copy of his allergist’s report, and she “had been trying to accommodate [Respondent], but it is difficult to do when the information [the School District] need[s] is still not provided.” Ranew again reminded Respondent that his students needed continuity in the classroom and, if he was unable to provide that, other arrangements would need to be made for the upcoming semester. Respondent provided Ranew with an allergist report dated January 18, 2013. The report explained that Respondent tested positive for multiple allergens, and recommended treatments, including immunotherapy (allergy injections), prescribed medications (nasal sprays), and surgery (balloon sinuplasty). Respondent’s allergist identified Respondent being allergic to 42 antigens, including cats, dogs, various grasses, weeds, trees, dust mites and cockroaches, and mold. Respondent’s allergist recommended Respondent undergo surgery, and Petitioner permitted Respondent to take FMLA leave for such surgery. Respondent was also permitted to intermittently use all remaining FMLA leave available to him, which he exhausted and which expired on March 28, 2013, due to the conclusion of his FMLA designated 12-month period. In addition to utilizing all FMLA leave available, the District also provided an additional 21 days of unpaid leave during the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year to Respondent, which was above and beyond his allotted sick leave, as well as above and beyond the 60 days of FMLA leave to which he was entitled. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was absent 89 out of 191 possible work days, which accounts for an absenteeism rate of 48 percent. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent only worked 772.50 hours. Although Petitioner designated additional unpaid days as FMLA, Respondent was not eligible for additional FMLA leave beginning in March 2013 through March 2014 because he had not worked the requisite number of hours in the preceding 12- month period to be eligible for FMLA leave. 2013-2014 School Year On August 9, 2013, prior to the beginning of the 2013- 2014 school year, Ranew sent a letter to Respondent regarding his excessive absenteeism; explaining that his regular attendance was expected during the upcoming 2013-2014 school year; that his students need continuity in the classroom and if he was unable to provide that continuity, that other arrangements needed to be made for the next school year; that he should not expect to be automatically extended any additional unpaid leave during the 2013-2014 school year; and he would only receive the sick leave to which he was already entitled. Ranew advised Respondent that when he returned for work at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year he would have four days of permitted sick leave advanced to him, and would accrue one additional day at the end of each month from August through February. In this letter, Ranew also told Respondent that it was her understanding that the sinus surgery that he underwent was part of his treatment plan to resolve the sinus and allergy issues which seriously impacted his attendance (during the 2012- 2013 school year) and that his chronic sinusitis was expected to improve post operatively. Respondent did not challenge or correct Ranew’s understanding on these issues and did not indicate that additional absences were anticipated. Ranew had serious concerns about the lack of consistent instruction for Respondent’s students due to Respondent’s absenteeism. Only 11 of Respondent’s 94 students passed the standardized math examination required for graduation in the 2012-2013 school year, which is approximately a 12 percent pass rate. This was significantly lower than the 50 percent pass rate of Respondent’s colleagues who also taught the same type of “struggling” math students. In order to minimize the potential disruption to students caused by excessive absenteeism, Respondent was assigned to teach accounting classes for the new school year which are not courses required for graduation. Respondent was also assigned to a different classroom, in a different building, for the 2013-2014 school year. As of October 3, 2013, Respondent was absent on August 27, 28, 29, 30, and September 5, 9, 20, 23, 25, 26, and October 2, 2013, well in excess of the sick leave that he was permitted to take in accordance with Board policy. By letter dated October 3, 2013, Ms. Ranew wrote to Respondent advising him that his pattern of absenteeism has a direct negative impact on an orderly learning environment and referring to her August 9 correspondence wherein she directed Respondent to advise the District if he needed leave above and beyond the sick days that he was permitted to take. Ranew advised Respondent that he had not provided the requested medical documentation that would support that he had a medical condition necessitating leave from his job, but that the District was continuing its attempt to engage Respondent in an interactive process concerning his medical condition, and again requested documentation from Respondent’s doctor addressing his recent absences and his current condition. In response to Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent submitted a doctor’s note dated October 9, 2013, which advised that Respondent’s condition “can be treated with nasal sprays and intermittent antibiotics” but raised the potential for future treatment to include additional surgical procedure(s). Importantly, the doctor’s note clearly explained that Respondent “can perform as a teacher with [his medical conditions], though he may notice hearing loss changes whenever he has middle ear fluid.” The October 9, 2013, doctor’s note Respondent submitted accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September, but failed to address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. Even after receiving Ms. Ranew’s October 3, 2013, letter, Respondent was absent on October 9, 21, and 22, 2013. As of October 24, 2013, Respondent was absent 14 days out of 46 instructional days for the 2013-2014 school year. Ranew worked with Yost in the decision to recommend to the Board that Respondent be placed on administrative leave without pay. The basis for that recommendation was Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and failure to follow protocol for sick leave. By letter dated October 24, 2013, Yost advised Respondent that she was recommending his placement on a leave of absence specifically because of his continual excessive absenteeism, which had been a constant disruption to the classroom and directly impacted an orderly, continuous learning environment for his students. Yost believed that recommending Respondent be placed on leave without pay was not disciplinary in nature, but rather done to provide him an accommodation to resolve any issues which had caused his excessive absenteeism. On October 24, 2013, Yost placed Respondent on “home assignment” with pay through November 19, 2013, at which time the Board voted to accept Yost’s recommendation to place Respondent on leave without pay for the remainder of the school year. The Charges Against Respondent In its Statement of Charges in Support of the Placement on Administrative Leave Without Pay filed on December 19, 2013, the District advanced four theories for Respondent’s leave without pay: incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. “Incompetency” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3) as, “the inability, failure or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity.” “Gross insubordination” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(4) as “the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or malfeasance as to involve failure in the performance of the required duties.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-5.056(2)(c). “Willful neglect of duty” is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the “intentional or reckless failure to carry out required duties.” “Misconduct in Office,” according to rule 6A-5.056(2), is satisfied by a showing of one or more of the following: a violation of the adopted school board rules, a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (as adopted in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001), or behavior that disrupts the student’s learning environment. The Board’s Policy 6.301(3)(b) identifies a variety of terminable offenses including: Insubordination * * * (x) Failure to follow a direct order in normal performance of employee’s job * * * Failure to notify supervisor and receive permission for one or more consecutive workdays’ absence Unsatisfactory work performance Excessive absences or tardiness Neglect of duty Unauthorized absences * * * (xix) Violation of any rule, policy, regulation, or established procedure * * * (xxix) Any violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, the Standards of Competent and Professional Performance, or the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees * * * (xxxiv) Failure to correct performance deficiencies The finding that Respondent violated one and/or multiple Board policies relating to his excessive absenteeism necessarily shows that he is guilty of “misconduct in office.” Respondent’s Defenses Reason for Absences Respondent does not dispute his record of absenteeism or the District’s record of communicating its concern regarding his chronic absenteeism and its effect on his students. Rather, Respondent asserts that his absenteeism was related to the environmental conditions at PSLHS. Respondent believes that he suffered from chronic sinus problems, headaches, and repeated scratchy throats due to possible exposure to mold or other allergens at the school which caused many of his absences. According to Respondent, PSLHS suffered storm damage in 2008 that resulted in mold growing around his classroom door. After school authorities were notified by Respondent of the mold issue, the door and mold was removed. Respondent has not worked in that classroom in more than three years. Respondent admitted that some of his absences during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years were not related to sinus problems. For example, Respondent missed work when he stayed up late with a new puppy. Respondent also missed work to get massage therapy on several occasions. Several of Respondent’s absences were attributed to stomach issues. None of Respondent’s doctors identified any need for Respondent to be extensively absent from work due to any medical condition, other than his recommended sinus surgery which occurred in early 2013 and was covered by FMLA. No evidence was introduced at the hearing that any of Respondent’s doctors actually determined that anything either at PSLHS or within Respondent’s classroom caused Respondent’s excessive absenteeism, or that Respondent could not work at PSLHS due any medical reason. To the contrary, during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent provided 30 doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent provided four doctor’s notes returning him to work with no restrictions. Respondent admitted he was allergic to various grasses and trees common to Florida, and even admitted he was allergic to the grass in his own yard. When Respondent was asked if anything changed in his home environment between the 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013 school years where his absences skyrocketed, he testified that he had just gotten a puppy. During the relevant time period, approximately 70 percent of Respondent’s absences occurred on days when the proceeding day was not a school day, which suggests it was unlikely that Respondent’s absences were due to the environment at his work site. Although Respondent claimed his school environment exacerbated his allergies, his absences at issue are full-day absences where he called in sick for the entire day rather than leaving work during the workday. At no time did Respondent or his healthcare providers suggest that PSLHS or Respondent’s classroom should have air quality testing. Respondent admitted, on the days he was absent, he felt worse when he woke up at home than when he was at work in his classroom and when he was too sick to come to work he would wake up “hacking.” Further, while on administrative leave without pay, Respondent showed up to PSLHS in January 2014 to oversee a wrestling tournament that he previously helped organize. It is illogical that Respondent would voluntarily return to the very place which he now suggests made him so sick that he needed to continuously take days off without available leave or sick time. No credible evidence was presented to suggest that Respondent’s chronic absenteeism was as a result of the District’s failure “to provide a suitable working environment,” as alleged by Respondent.1/ Use of Administrative Leave Rather Than Discipline The Board asserts that Respondent’s chronic pattern of absences during the 2012-2013 school year and the first few months of the 2013-2014 school year resulted in “just cause” for termination. However, in lieu of termination, Ranew proposed, and the Board accepted, her recommendation for administrative leave without pay. Ranew credibly testified that she believed this would give Respondent the opportunity to take care of any problems that were causing his absenteeism and allow him to successfully return to the classroom in the 2014-2015 school year. There is no provision under any statute, rule, or policy specifically providing the Board with the authority to place an employee on administrative leave without pay instead of a suspension without pay or termination.2/ Because of this, Respondent argues that he was deprived of due process by the Board and that the Board’s action constitutes the improper use of an unpromulgated rule. A “rule” is defined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as an: agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of rule. § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. No evidence was presented regarding any alleged Board “statement of general applicability” regarding the use of administrative leave without pay as a substitute for disciplinary action. Further, it is clear from the record that Respondent received all the process to which he was entitled--notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Respondent was provided a letter by hand delivery on October 24, 2013, from Yost in which he was advised that he was being placed on temporary duty assignment until the next Board meeting and that she intended to recommend he be placed on administrative leave without pay through the remainder of the school year due to his excessive absenteeism. He was notified that he had exhausted all paid leave yet continued to be absent. It was also noted that Respondent’s physician indicated he could perform as a teacher but may have a hearing loss when middle ear fluid is present. Notably, his physician’s letter accounted for four of his absences in August and two of his absences in September 2013, but did not address the other eight absences which he incurred during September and October 2013. This letter advised Respondent that if he had any information to provide regarding why this action should not be taken, he could do so in a meeting or in writing. Accordingly, Respondent had notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the implementation of the leave without pay. Additionally, the Statement of Charges issued on December 19, 2013, and the formal administrative hearing before DOAH constituted notice and an evidentiary hearing-–the post adverse employment action due process to which Respondent was entitled. The undersigned has no doubt about the sincerity of the Board’s desire to see Respondent take time to address whatever was resulting in his absences and return to work successfully. However, to call Respondent’s “administrative leave without pay” a non-disciplinary action is an exercise in form over substance. While on leave, Respondent was not receiving his normal wages for teaching. He was not allowed to return to the school to teach for the balance of the school year.3/ Understandably, Respondent does not perceive his leave as beneficent. For all intents and purposes it is, in fact, a “suspension” without pay which, pursuant to the Board’s policies, applicable rules, and statutes, can only be imposed for “just cause.”4/ Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a pattern of excessive and chronic unexcused absenteeism during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, despite the District’s repeated reminders regarding the disruption caused by Respondent’s absences and its multiple attempts to accommodate any medical condition that might have been causing the absences.5/ This pattern resulted in a variety of terminable offenses as described in Board Policy 6.301(3)(b). It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of incompetency, as defined by rule 6A- 5.056(3)(a)5. by virtue of his excessive absenteeism--a pattern which was not resolved after FMLA leave, 21 additional days of leave without pay during the 2012-2013 school year, and which continued into the new school year of 2013-2014. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination by virtue of his failure to perform his required duties, excessive absenteeism despite having no paid leave available, and failing to return to work on a consistent and regular basis after repeated and extensive counseling by the District regarding the consequences of his actions. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty by failing to regularly report to work or to properly request time off from work or make arrangements to have lesson plans available for substitute teachers. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office by virtue of his violation of School Board policies and disrupting his students’ learning environment by his chronic absenteeism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent’s suspension without pay from November 20, 2013, through the end of the 2013- 2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of his suspension; and reinstating Respondent’s employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014-2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended, without pay, and terminated from all employment with Petitioner for the offenses set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Hankerson was an instructional employee with the School Board. Ms. Hankerson has been a teacher with the School Board for 11 years, beginning as a teacher with the School Board in 2000. She was first assigned to Renick Education Center. Subsequently, Ms. Hankerson was transferred to Barbara Goleman High School (Goleman) in Miami Lakes, Florida. During the 2009-2010 school year, she taught science to exceptional student education (ESE) students at Goleman. At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Hankerson was advised that her department was being eliminated and that she needed to find another school at which to work if she desired to continue her employment with the School Board. She sought other schools and received an email from Howard McMillan Middle School (McMillan) to come for an interview. She accepted a teaching position at McMillan, effective September 20, 2010. While working at Goleman in Miami Lakes, Florida, Ms. Hankerson resided in Miami Shores, Florida. Her residence was in close proximity to Goleman. She had three children and was able to get her children to school and report to Goleman in a timely manner throughout her tenure at Goleman. Ms. Hankerson's travel time to McMillan was significantly greater than to Goleman due to McMillan being located further south than Goleman.2 During the 2010-2011 school year, all teachers at McMillan were required to report to work at 8:30 a.m. Professional meetings, which consisted of team meetings and department meetings, were held from 8:30 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. Team meetings were held three days a week. Department meetings were held two days a week, where teachers meet by department to discuss curricular activities and requirements. Faculty meetings were held every other Tuesdays, and, when faculty meetings occurred, no professional meetings were held because the faculty meetings replaced the professional meetings. At 9:00 a.m., teachers went to their respective classroom to meet their students, who began arriving at 9:00 a.m. Instruction began at 9:10 a.m., with homeroom followed by advisement, where the Comprehensive Research Reading Plan was implemented, and ended at 9:46 a.m. First period began at 9:56 a.m. School ended at 3:50 p.m. Ms. Hankerson was assigned a homeroom class. The students in her classroom consisted of eighth grade students, who were not performing at grade level in reading and were FCAT Level 1 students in reading. Ms. Hankerson's first period (Period 1) was a seventh grade civics class. Her students consisted of ESE students, with varying exceptionalities. She was the sole teacher. Ms. Hankerson was a co-teacher for four periods of the remaining school day, teaching science. The students for the four periods consisted of general education students and ESE students. Ms. Hankerson was the ESE teacher, and the other teacher was the general education teacher, who generally took the lead in the classroom. The second period (Period 2) was a seventh grade science class; the third period (Period 3) was an eighth grade science class; the fourth period (Period 4) was a sixth grade science class; and the sixth period (Period 6) was a seventh grade science class. Her fifth period (Period 5) was a planning period. No dispute exists that Ms. Hankerson's employment with the School Board is subject to, among other things, a professional service contract, a collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD), and policies and procedures of the School Board. School Board Policy and the Agreement provide teachers with one sick day of leave every month. At the beginning of each school year, each teacher is given, up front, four days of sick leave that the teacher can use. However, the accrual of sick leave is one sick leave day per month for the ten-month period that a teacher is employed with the School Board, totaling ten sick days of leave. During the ten-month period, if a teacher takes leave exceeding the ten days and does not have leave that is "banked," which is leave that is carried over from one school year to the next, it results in leave without pay, unauthorized. In a medical situation, if a teacher knows that he or she will be absent for an extended period of time, the teacher would apply for leave. If the absence will be over 30 days, the teacher would apply for medical leave and can use leave that is banked. However, if no leave is banked, it results in leave without pay, unauthorized. If a teacher is going to be absent from work, the teacher is required to call into a dedicated-absence telephone line at least one hour before the start of the workday. On the day that the teacher is absent, the teacher is also required to call his or her school 30 minutes prior to the scheduled student dismissal time, indicating whether he or she will report to work on the next workday in order for the school to make arrangements for a substitute teacher. A teacher, who is absent without prior approval, is deemed to have been willfully absent without leave, except in a situation of sudden illness or an emergency situation. Immediately upon beginning at McMillan, Ms. Hankerson began arriving late and using her sick days. Eight days after beginning at McMillan, on September 28, 2010, she took a sick leave day; on October 1, 2010, she took one day of leave without pay, unauthorized; and on October 13 and 19, 2010, she took one sick leave day and one-half sick leave day, respectively. On October 21, 2010, while she was at McMillan, allegations, unrelated to the instant case, involving inappropriate conduct and remarks were made against Ms. Hankerson. Effective October 22, 2010, she was removed from McMillan and placed at the School Board's Region office, pending an investigation. A substitute teacher was hired to take over Ms. Hankerson's classes. The allegations were referred for investigation to the School Board's Civilian Investigative Unit. Ms. Hankerson was assigned to the Region office from October 22, 2010, through February 22, 2011. While at the Region office, Ms. Hankerson continued her pattern of absences. Between October 22, 2010, and February 22, 2011, she accumulated an additional 18 days of absences: five and one-half days of leave without pay, unauthorized; seven days of leave without pay, authorized; and five and one-half days of sick leave. The investigation into the allegations was concluded. At a Conference-For-The-Record (CFR) held by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) on November 29, 2010, memorialized in a Summary of CFR dated December 3, 2010, Ms. Handerson was advised that probable cause existed for violations of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics. At the CFR, the OPS provided her with a copy of the School Board rules; The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida; and a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching." Additionally, the OPS issued her directives, including adhere to all the School Board's rules and regulations; and comport, both at the workplace and in the community, in a manner that reflects credit upon herself and the School Board. By letter dated February 10, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was notified that the School Board had taken action, at its meeting on February 9, 2011, to suspend her without pay for five workdays from February 10, 2011, through February 16, 2011. Further, the letter notified her to report to work at McMillan on February 17, 2011. However, Ms. Hankerson did not serve the suspension from February 10, 2011, through February 16, 2011. The suspension was rescheduled to February 22 through 28, 2011, with her return to McMillan on March 1, 2011. Having served her suspension on February 22 through 28, 2011, Ms. Hankerson failed to return to McMillan on March 1, 2011. Moreover, she failed to call the dedicated absence telephone line at McMillan, the Absence Reporting System (ARS), one hour prior to the workday on March 1, 2011, to state that she would not report to work that day; and failed to call 30 minutes before the scheduled student dismissal on March 1, 2011, to state whether she would report to work on March 2, 2011. On March 2, 2011, Ms. Hankerson reported to McMillan for work and, also, reported ten minutes late, at 8:40 a.m. That same morning, McMillan's principal, Hilca Thomas, met with Ms. Hankerson and advised her that she (Ms. Hankerson) was required to report to work on March 1, 2011, not March 2, 2011; and that March 1, 2011, would be reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Ms. Hankerson blamed the arrival on March 2, 2011, instead of March 1, 2011, on a miscommunication between her and the UTD representative. Further, Ms. Thomas reminded Ms. Hankerson of the hours of work and the attendance procedures, including communicating absences using the ARS. Ms. Hankerson stated that she would "not make it in at 8:30"; that she would "be late almost every morning because of [her] children and [she] live[s] far [away]"; and that being late was "unavoidable." Additionally, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that her (Ms. Hankerson's) undergarment was exposed and that she was not wearing appropriate attire. Ms. Hankerson abruptly left Ms. Thomas' office stating that she was going to UTD's office downtown. Shortly thereafter, around 9:15 a.m., Ms. Henderson returned to Ms. Thomas' office, but a substitute teacher was already deployed to Ms. Hankerson's classroom. As a result, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that she (Ms. Hankerson) could leave for the day and directed Ms. Hankerson to report back to McMillan for work on March 3, 2011. The events on March 2, 2011, were memorialized in a memorandum from Ms. Thomas to Ms. Hankerson on that same date. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receiving a copy of the memorandum. The evidence demonstrates that the directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas to report to work at 8:30 a.m. and to follow the procedures for absences were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. Ms. Hankerson failed to report to work at McMillan on March 3, 2011. Also, she failed to report to work on March 4, 2011. Both days were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Ms. Hankerson reported to work at McMillan on March 7, 2011, the next school day, at which time she was issued an Absence from Worksite Directive by Ms. Thomas. The Absence from Worksite Directive advised Ms. Hankerson, among other things, that attendance and punctuality were essential functions of her job and that, since September 20, 2010, she had accumulated 25.5 absences.3 The absences were reflected as four absences within her first month at McMillan (September 20 through October 22, 2010); 17.5 absences when she was assigned to the Region office during the investigation; and four absences when she was to report back to McMillan between March 1 and 4, 2011. Additionally, the Absence from Worksite Directive instructed Ms. Hankerson on the proper procedures to obtain authorized leave of absence. She had failed to avail herself of the proper procedures to obtain authorized leave of absence. Further, the Absence from Worksite Directive advised Ms. Hankerson that her noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. On March 7, 2011, Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receiving the Absence from Worksite Directive by signing the document. The evidence demonstrates that the directives issued to Ms. Hankerson by Ms. Thomas in the Absence from Worksite Directive were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to issue the directives. Ms. Hankerson failed to abide by and comply with the directives. On March 10, 2011, three days after receiving the Absence from Worksite Directive, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan late, 9:50 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on the same day of the tardiness and reminded her (Ms. Hankerson) of the directives. Additionally, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. Hankerson that she (Ms. Hankerson) was inappropriately dressed. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 11, 2011, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan late, 8:50 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on the same day of the tardiness and advised her (Ms. Hankerson) that, because she (Ms. Hankerson) had failed to call-in to the ARS, a substitute had been hired for the day. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Hankerson failed to report to McMillan. Additionally, she failed to call-in to the ARS to state whether she would be reporting to work on March 22, 2011, and, as a result, Ms. Thomas hired a substitute for March 22, 2011. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson on March 22, 2011, and reviewed the absence with her (Ms. Hankerson); reported Ms. Hankerson's absence as unauthorized; and advised Ms. Hankerson that a substitute was hired for the day. Ms. Thompson reported each absence as one-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On March 29, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan approximately an hour early, at 2:45 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Also, she failed to attend her class at Period 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. The next day, March 30, 2011, Ms. Hankerson did not report to McMillan. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. The following day, March 31, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan approximately 30 minutes early, at 3:20 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Additionally, she failed to attend her class at Period 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. The next day, April 1, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan at 12:30 p.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Also, she failed to attend her classes at Periods 4 and 6. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as a half-day leave without pay, unauthorized. On April 4, 2011, Ms. Hankerson left McMillan at 10:47 a.m., without prior approval and without signing-out. Ms. Thompson reported the absence as one day leave without pay, unauthorized. The following day, April 5, 2011, Ms. Hankerson arrived at McMillan a little over one-half hour late, at 9:03 a.m. Ms. Thomas met with Ms. Hankerson, regarding the attendance, and informed her (Ms. Hankerson's) that the early departures from McMillan would be reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Thomas provided Ms. Hankerson with notification of a CFR to be held on April 8, 2011. The next day, April 6, 2011, Ms. Hankerson did not report to McMillan. Additionally, she failed to call-in to the ARS to state whether she would be reporting to work on April 7, 2011, and, as a result, Ms. Thomas hired a substitute for April 7, 2011. The CFR on April 8, 2011, was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. Even though Ms. Hankerson had reported to McMillan for the workday, she did not appear at the CFR at the scheduled time. When an "all call" was made over the public address system for her at 3:20 p.m., Ms. Hankerson responded and was informed that should report to the CFR. However, she did not arrive at the CFR until 3:49 p.m. and informed Ms. Thomas, among other things, that the CFR should proceed without her (Ms. Hankerson) because her (Ms. Hankerson's) children were home alone and she (Ms. Hankerson) was leaving at 3:50 p.m., the end of the workday. Ms. Hankerson left, and the CFR proceeded without her. The attendees at the CFR included Ms. Thomas; the assistant principal; and the UTD Representative. The purpose of the CFR was to address Ms. Hankerson's insubordination regarding previously issued attendance directives, and her noncompliance to School Board rules 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, 6Gx13- 4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and to review her record and future employment status with the School Board. A Summary of the CFR was prepared by Ms. Thomas on April 18, 2011. The Summary for the CFR included a delineation of Ms. Hankerson's absences, reflecting that, since the issuance of the Absence of Worksite Directive on March 7, 2011, through April 15, 2011, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated one-half day absence of leave without pay, authorized; 10.5 days absence of leave without pay, unauthorized; one temporary duty day; and one personal day.4 Furthermore, the Summary for the CFR reflected that, as of April 15, 2011, for the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated a total of 46 absences.5 The Summary for the CFR contained directives to Ms. Hankerson. The directives included: adherence to School Board rules 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; to report to work and depart from work daily at the scheduled hours; be in regular attendance at the worksite and on time; adhere to attendance directives previously issued; communicate any intent to be absent directly to the principal and by calling the ARS; the reporting of future absences will be leave without pay, unauthorized, unless documentation showing qualification under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave of absence is provided; and for imminent absences, leave must be requested and procedures for School Board approved leave implemented, and the FMLA or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, if applicable, must be complied with. Ms. Hankerson was advised that failure to comply with the directives would lead to further review for disciplinary action and would be considered gross insubordination. Further, the Summary for the CFR advised Ms. Hankerson that she would be issued a letter of reprimand. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receipt of the Summary for the CFR on April 18, 2011, by signing the Summary for the CFR. The evidence demonstrates that the directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas at the CFR and the Summary for the CFR were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. On April 18, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Reprimand. The Reprimand was based on Ms. Hankerson's failure to comply with the previous directive issued to Ms. Hankerson regarding attendance and professional responsibilities. Additionally, the Reprimand advised Ms. Hankerson that any recurrence of the noncompliance might lead to disciplinary action and would be considered gross insubordination. Ms. Hankerson acknowledged receipt of the Reprimand on April 18, 2011, by signing the Reprimand. Ms. Hankerson failed to comply with the directives issued in the Summary for the CFR. On the same day of the Reprimand, April 18, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was absent one-half day, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Two days thereafter, she was absent for three consecutive days, April 20 through 22, 2011, each day being reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Having worked the next school day, April 25, 2011, Ms. Hankerson was absent one-half day on April 26, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized; absent one-half day on April 27, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized; and absent one day on April 28, 2011, reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Additionally, she was tardy for work on April 27, 2011. From April 18 through 28, 2011, she had a total of five and one-half absences. Due to these recent absences and tardiness, on April 28, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum. The absences and tardiness were listed in the memorandum, and Ms. Hankerson was advised that the absences were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Hankerson was advised that she had continued to be absent, tardy, and insubordinate; that her continued failure to comply with the reissued directives resulted in gross insubordination; and that, therefore, the memorandum would be forwarded to OPS for gross insubordination and further disciplinary action. She acknowledged receipt of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re- Issued Directives memorandum on April 18, 2011, by signing it. The evidence demonstrates that the re-issued directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. Ms. Hankerson's absences, tardiness, and early departures continued. On May 2 through 4, 2011, she was absent one day each date; May 5, 6, and 13, 2011, she was absent one- half day each date; and May 16, 2011, she was absent one day; totaling five and one-half days of absences, which were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Also, Ms. Hankerson was tardy seven times, on May 5, 6, 10 through 13, and 17, 2011, which were unauthorized. Additionally, she departed McMillan early two times, on May 6 and 13, 2011, which were unauthorized. Due to these recent absences, tardiness, and early departures, on May 17, 2011, Ms. Thomas issued Ms. Hankerson a Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum. The absences, tardiness, and early departures were listed in the memorandum, and Ms. Hankerson was advised that the absences were reported as leave without pay, unauthorized. Further, Ms. Hankerson was advised that she had continued to be insubordinate; that her continued failure to comply with the reissued directives resulted in gross insubordination; and that, therefore, the memorandum would be forwarded to OPS for gross insubordination and further disciplinary action. She acknowledged receipt of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re- Issued Directives memorandum on May 17, 2011, by signing it. The evidence demonstrates that the second re-issued directives to Ms. Hankerson from Ms. Thomas were reasonable. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thomas had the authority to give the directives. At the time of the Continued Failure to Comply with Re-Issued Directives memorandum on May 17, 2011, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated 57 absences. Additionally, she had multiple instances of tardiness and early departures. A CFR was held by OPS. Persons in attendance included the Director of OPS; Ms. Thomas; and Ms. Hankerson and her UTD Representative. At the CFR, Ms. Hankerson was provided an opportunity to respond. OPS recommended termination of Ms. Hankerson's employment for gross insubordination and violation of School Board's rules concerning Responsibilities and Duties, Code of Ethics, and Absences and Leaves. After the CFR at OPS, Ms. Hankerson reported for work at McMillan only on June 7, 2011, and June 9, 2011, which was the last day of the 2010-2011 school year. On June 9, 2011, she arrived late, signed-in, and left McMillan shortly thereafter, not remaining at work the entire time set-aside for the last day. From the time that she began at McMillan until the time of the recommendation by OPS, Ms. Hankerson had accumulated 57 absences during the 2010-2011 school year. Of the 57 absences, 18.5 absences occurred during the time that she was assigned to the Region office, not in the classroom. Ms. Hankerson's absences and tardiness negatively impacted the role of Ms. Thomas as the principal and leader of McMillan. Often times, due to Ms. Hankerson's tardiness, Ms. Thomas had no choice but to take over Ms. Hankerson's homeroom class; and when she (Ms. Thomas) was unable to do so, she (Ms. Thomas) had to find another teacher to cover the homeroom class until Ms. Hankerson arrived. Additionally, when Ms. Thomas had no notice that Ms. Hankerson would be absent, Ms. Thomas had no choice but to take over Ms. Hankerson's homeroom class until a substitute, who had to contacted at the last minute because of no prior notice, arrived; and when she (Ms. Thomas) was unable to do so, she (Ms. Thomas) had to find another teacher to cover the homeroom class until the substitute arrived. As a result of the recommendation of OPS, the Superintendent recommended to the School Board the suspension, without pay, and termination of the employment of Ms. Hankerson. At its regularly scheduled meeting held on June 15, 2011, the School Board took action to suspend, without pay, Ms. Hankerson and initiate dismissal proceedings against her from all employment for just cause, including, but not limited to: misconduct in office; gross insubordination; attendance-to-date; and violation of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. Ms. Hankerson does not refute the absences, the tardiness, or the early departures. For the instances of tardiness, Ms. Hankerson testified at hearing that she would call-in before 8:30 a.m. and state that she was en-route and would be late. The School Board did not refute her assertion. Despite her calling-in, Ms. Hankerson admitted that Ms. Thomas did not tolerate her (Ms. Hankerson's) tardiness and took the action previously mentioned. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. On March 2, 2011, Ms. Hankerson informed Ms. Thomas that arriving late for work at McMillan was unavoidable because she (Ms. Hankerson) took her (Ms. Hankerson's) children to school and she (Ms. Hankerson) lived so far away from McMillan. Additionally, around April 2011, Ms. Hankerson informed Ms. Thomas that she (Ms. Hankerson) was going through a divorce. At hearing, Ms. Hankerson testified that, during March, April, May, and June 2011, she was having marital problems and living sometimes at home and sometimes with her mother in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which was approximately 28 miles from McMillan. Ms. Hankerson took her children to school, but, when she lived with her mother, she would not leave them at their school in the mornings alone if it was dark. She testified further that she was being investigated by the Department of Children and Families regarding allegations of neglect and being an unfit mother. Additionally, she testified that she was having financial problems. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. However, she did not provide these details to Ms. Thomas. Further, Ms. Hankerson testified that, for April, May, and June 2011, she considered taking leave using the FMLA and contacted her UTD Representative. Ms. Hankerson decided not to take leave using the FMLA. The UTD Representative did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Hankerson's testimony is found to be credible. Again, Ms. Hankerson did not provide this detail to Ms. Thomas. Ms. Hankerson testified that the circumstances that she indicated caused her absences, tardiness, and early departures have been resolved. Her testimony is found to be credible. Before working at McMillan on September 20, 2010, Ms. Hankerson had no prior disciplinary action taken against her by the School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Lavonda Hankerson, without pay, for the 2011-2012 school term and under other terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact David B. Clark, Respondent, is employed by the Leon County School Board on continuing contract and was so employed at all times here involved. By Request for Leave dated May 31, 1978 (Exhibit 2) Respondent requested leave without pay from August 1978 through June 1979 for the purpose of continuing education. The request was forwarded approved by the Respondent's principal and approved by N. E. (Ed) Fenn, Petitioner. The principal who recommended approval of Respondent's leave request testified he would not have recommended approval had he not believed Respondent would pursue graduate studies. At the time Respondent submitted his application for leave he had been assured of financial assistance from his family to provide him the necessary funds to be a full-time student at Florida State University in the Masters program in public administration. In July Respondent learned he would be unable to get the financing he had expected to allow him to attend school full time. He proceeded to the school personnel office, advised the personnel director of his dilemma and requested advice. She advised him to go to the school at which he was employed the past school year and ask for his position back for the 1978-79 school year. When he did so he found a new principal had been appointed who was unsure of the job availability but he advised Respondent that his previous year's position had been filled by someone else. Respondent went back to the personnel officer for Leon County School Board where he learned there were no jobs available but he could be listed on the rolls as a substitute. He also was told that he should attempt to take some graduate courses even if he couldn't afford to go full time. Respondent agreed to try and do so. By letter dated 31 July 1978 (Exhibit 5) Respondent applied to be placed on the rolls as a substitute teacher for the 1978-79 school year. Respondent then took a sales job at which he worked in the late afternoon and early evening while also working as a substitute teacher. After the first semester, Respondent quit his sales job and worked full-time as a substitute teacher until the end of the school year. He was then offered a summer job on a construction project in Georgia, which he took. After Respondent reapplied and was employed for the 1979-1980 school year, the charges of gross insubordination and misconduct in office followed. Respondent's evaluation reports (Exhibit 4) contain a satisfactory rating in all categories for the past three years. Only in the year 1974-1975 was a "needs to improve" rating given in any of the categories for evaluation. Subsequent to the 1974-1975 evaluation year Respondent was placed on continuing contract status.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools District pursuant to a professional services contract. In the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Homestead Middle School. In the 2012-2013 school year, until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at the Alternative Outreach Program, 5000 Role Models location.1/ At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Events Giving Rise to these Proceedings The 2011-2012 School Year Respondent began teaching eighth grade science at Homestead Middle School ("HMS") in August 2011. The 2011-2012 school year for students began on August 22, 2011. The workday hours for teachers at HMS for the 2011-2012 school year were from 7:25 a.m. to 2:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed for her teaching position, and again so informed during the first faculty meeting of the school year. Pursuant to the UTD contract, the teacher work hours per day in the Miami-Dade Public Schools consist of seven hours and 20 minutes, including a one-hour planning period. The UTD Contract provides that teachers may, with the approval of the work-site administrator (i.e., the principal) modify their workday schedule, such as adjusting the beginning time of the teacher's workday, provided that such modification does not interfere with the overall number of hours worked. This provision affords a principal the authority and discretion to modify a teacher's workday schedule. The student school day hours for HMS began at 7:35 a.m., when the first bell rang and students began entering their classrooms, and ended at 2:20 p.m. Students were to be in their classrooms by 7:40 a.m. for a homeroom period, immediately followed by the first instructional period consisting of a literacy block. The student school day schedule is set by the Miami-Dade County School Board and the school principal is not authorized to change it. Pursuant to HMS's established procedure, if a teacher was going to be absent, he or she must call the absence hotline at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the teacher workday. Shortly after the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began being tardy to work. HMS Principal Rachelle Surrancy or one of the HMS assistant principals would note Respondent's arrival time, either by being in the front of the school when she arrived2/ or by having to open the door to her classroom to let her homeroom class students in if she arrived after the late bell had rung. Surrancy verbally reminded Respondent of the school's starting time, then held an informal meeting with her on or about September 7, 2011, to remind her of the same. Respondent's young son suffers from a range of significant health conditions, including asthma, gastrointestinal reflux, apnea, pneumonia, lactose intolerance, allergic rhinitis, and eczema. He requires extensive care for these conditions, and Respondent was required to administer breathing treatments and other care on a daily basis. During flare-ups of her son's conditions, Respondent needed to take medical leave to provide that care. On or about September 20, 2011, Respondent submitted to Surrancy an Intermittent Leave Request Medical Certification form under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (hereafter "FMLA Form")3/ requesting approval for Respondent to periodically take leave due to the intermittent illness of her young son. The FMLA form was completed and signed by Respondent's son's physician. Based on the child's medical history, the physician estimated that Respondent would need to take FMLA leave every two to three months, for a period lasting two to three days. Notwithstanding Surrancy's admonitions, Respondent continued to be tardy to work. During the first 25 days of the school year, Respondent was tardy 16 of those days. Most of the tardies entailed an arrival time of between two and five minutes late, but some entailed arrival times as much as 25 to 35 minutes late. When Respondent arrived after 7:40 a.m. (15 minutes late), her colleagues in the science department were placed in the position of having to cover her class until she arrived. As a result of Respondent's continued tardiness, on September 28, 2011, Surrancy issued a Punctuality to Work Directive ("Directive") to Respondent regarding her punctuality and attendance.4/ The Directive reminded Respondent that punctuality and attendance were essential components of her teaching position, and that as a faculty member, she served as a role model to other employees and student. Respondent was apprised that she was to arrive at work on time and sign in daily by 7:25 a.m. If she was going to be tardy, she was to communicate that to an assistant principal or to Surrancy. Surrancy explained that compliance with these directives was necessary to prevent adverse impact to the students and their academic progress, to ensure continuity of the educational program, and to maintain effective worksite operations. The memo advised Respondent that she could obtain assistance to facilitate her punctuality. Respondent was notified that noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. Respondent told Surrancy that the reason she was tardy was that she had to take her son to his daycare center. The daycare center did not open until 7:00 a.m., making it difficult for her to arrive at HMS by 7:25 a.m. due to the commute in morning traffic. On October 5, 2011, Surrancy evaluated Respondent's instructional performance for the 2011-2012 school year pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used in the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. Surrancy rated Respondent as "effective" for each IPEGS standard other than Performance Standard ("PS") 7, "Professionalism."5/ For that standard, she rated Respondent's performance as "unsatisfactory" on the basis that due to her tardies, Respondent violated the School Board's Code of Ethics and Standards of Ethical Conduct policies.6/ After the September 28 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy, so on October 10, 2011, Surrancy again met with her. Respondent explained that each day, her son required a breathing treatment regimen that she had to administer and that she had to take her son to daycare. Respondent told Surrancy that she planned to enlist the assistance of a friend to take her son to daycare so that may assist her to arrive on time.7/ Surrancy offered to adjust Respondent's workday schedule to allow her to arrive five minutes later to accommodate her travel time from her son's daycare to HMS, contingent on Respondent arriving at work by 7:30 a.m. However, Respondent continued to be tardy, at times arriving later than 7:30 a.m. Surrancy held a follow-up meeting with Respondent on October 25, 2011, at which she notified Respondent that the adjusted workday schedule no longer was in effect and that she was again required to arrive at 7:25 a.m.8/ In the meantime, Respondent sought to transfer to a school having a workday schedule with which she could more easily comply, given her son's daycare start time and her travel time. She was offered, but declined, a position at Redland Middle School, which entailed a teaching assignment that was out of her field of certification. Respondent declined the position because it did not meet the condition of her loan forgiveness program that the assignment be in a critical subject area——such as science and math——and because she did not believe she would be as proficient a teacher in teaching out of her subject area. Following the October 25 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy. Several of these tardies necessitated coverage for her homeroom class. On December 14, 2011, Surrancy held a Conference-for- the-Record ("CFR") with Respondent to address her continued tardiness. By that time, Respondent had been tardy 45 days since the beginning of the school year, and several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class by her colleagues. Surrancy informed Respondent that her tardies had adversely affected the educational program and services provided to students. Respondent was again directed to be punctual and in regular attendance, to communicate any intent to be tardy before 7:00 a.m. by calling the assistant principals or her, and to provide physician documentation and/or recertification of her FMLA form as needed if she was going to use FMLA leave to cover her tardies. Respondent was provided copies of Petitioner's policies on Standards of Ethical Conduct, Code of Ethics, and Leaves of Absence; Department of Education rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006; another copy of the FMLA for recertification by her physician; and other documents to inform and assist Respondent in addressing her tardiness problem. Respondent was informed that noncompliance with the directives would constitute insubordination and compel district disciplinary action. Respondent continued to be tardy. Again, several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class. On February 13, 2012, Surrancy conducted another CFR with Respondent. As of that date, Respondent had been tardy 69 days since the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Surrancy issued Respondent the same directives previously given and again furnished Respondent copies of pertinent School Board policies, applicable Department of Education rules, and other informational documents. Surrancy informed Respondent that failure to comply with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and necessitate further disciplinary action. Respondent explained that her tardiness was due to a variety of factors, including having to perform breathing and other medical treatments on her son and taking him to daycare. She expressed concern at having to call in by 7:00 a.m. if she was going to be tardy because, for unforeseen reasons such as her son's daycare being late in opening, she may not know whether she was going to be tardy until after 7:00 a.m. Surrancy informed Respondent that under any circumstances, calling in did not excuse tardiness. Respondent requested that Surrancy assign her homeroom to another teacher and allow her to report at 7:45 a.m., when her science classes commenced. Surrancy refused. As a result of Respondent's continued tardies, Surrancy determined that her conduct constituted insubordination and noncompliance with applicable School Board policies. Surrancy issued a written Reprimand to Respondent on March 5, 2012. The Reprimand directed Respondent to adhere to school board policies, be punctual, and call Surrancy or an assistant principal before 7:00 a.m. if she were going to be tardy. Respondent nonetheless continued to be tardy, necessitating another CFR, which was held on March 29, 2012. By this time, Respondent had been tardy 86 days and absent 8.5 days in the 2011-2012 school year. During the CFR, Respondent provided two FMLA leave request forms completed by her son's treating physicians certifying the frequency and duration of her son's flare-ups that necessitated leave. One of these, dated March 6, 2012, stated that flare-ups occurred at a frequency of every one to two months for a duration of two to three days, while the other, dated February 20, 2012, stated that the flare-ups occurred approximately once a month and did not specify a duration. Under any circumstances, Respondent was tardy more frequently than the number of days of leave documented as necessary by either of these FMLA forms. Respondent again was given directives, which included those previously provided regarding punctuality and attendance, calling in by 7:00 a.m. if tardiness was anticipated, physician documentation for leave requests, performance of her teaching duties, comporting herself in a manner that reflected credit on herself and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and adherence to School Board policies and applicable Department of Education rules. Respondent was again provided copies of the policies, rules, and other documents previously given to her. Respondent was offered the option of resigning her position but declined. Surrancy recommended that Respondent be suspended from her teaching position. However, Respondent was not suspended during the 2011-2012 school year.9/ Although Respondent's tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year required coverage of her homeroom class by colleagues on several occasions, she did not miss any classroom instructional time.10/ 2012-2013 School Year For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was hired as a math and science teacher in the Educational Alternative Outreach Program's ("EAO") credit recovery program. She was assigned to the EAO's 5000 Role Models location. In this assignment, Respondent taught between 12 and 15 students in grades six through eight. The 5000 Role Models facility was located between 35 and 40 miles from Respondent's home. She had a commute of between one hour ten minutes and two hours one way from her home to 5000 Role Models. The teacher workday hours for this location were 8:20 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed by EAO Principal Claire Warren, and by letter from Warren regarding her projected teaching assignment for the 2012-2013 school year. Warren credibly testified that at the time she was interviewed, Respondent did not express any concerns regarding this schedule. The student school day at 5000 Role Models started at 9:00 a.m. Shortly after the school year commenced, Respondent began being tardy. During the first week of the students' school year, Respondent was tardy twice, approximately 20 minutes each time. On August 31, 2012, Warren issued Respondent a written memorandum reminding her of the directives that were issued the previous school year and directing her to be punctual and in regular attendance; call before 8:00 a.m. to notify either Warren or the assistant principal if she was going to be absent or tardy; provide physician documentation for absences and tardies due to illness; timely submit updated FMLA forms if anticipated illness or tardies covered under the FMLA are anticipated; adhere to all School Board policies; and perform her job responsibilities. Respondent was placed on notice that noncompliance with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate notification of the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. As of October 1, 2012, Respondent had been tardy eight times11/ and absent three days.12/ On some of the days she was tardy, Respondent did not call to notify the administration, as she had been directed to do; on other days, she sent text messages but did not call. Warren conducted another conference with Respondent on October 1, 2012. She issued another memorandum documenting Respondent's tardies since the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, reiterating the directives previously issued on August 31, and notifying Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination. Warren also provided a letter to Respondent regarding FMLA coverage of her tardies and absences. The letter informed Respondent that only absences, i.e., time away from the worksite, and not tardies were covered by the FMLA, and that it was her responsibility to notify the school if she were going to be absent pursuant to an FMLA-certified illness event. Attached to the letter was an FMLA Form to enable Respondent to update her FMLA-covered illness certification as necessary. Respondent's tardies continued. She was tardy on October 2, 5, 8, and 9——on some of these days as much as 45 to 70 minutes late. On the days when she was tardy by 40 or more minutes, she missed classroom instructional time and her students had to be placed in another teacher's classroom. On October 10, 2012, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay,13/ for gross insubordination and for violating School Board policies regarding the Code of Ethics (policy 3210), Standards of Ethical Conduct (policy 3210.01), and Leaves of Absence (policy 3430), and rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009.14/ Respondent served her suspension and returned to work on November 26, 2012. On that day, she was 11 minutes tardy; the following day, she was 40 minutes tardy. On November 29, 2012, Warren issued another memorandum to Respondent reiterating the directives previously given on August 31 and October 1. Respondent was informed that her failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate referral to the Office of Professional Standards for further discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. In December 2012 and January 2013, Respondent was tardy 13 days, two of which required coverage of her class. Respondent did not call in to the school to notify them of her anticipated tardiness but she did notify the school by text message on some of these occasions. On February 1, 2013, Respondent was notified of a CFR scheduled for February 5, 2013. On February 4, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she would not be at school that day or the following day. On February 6, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she was taking a leave of absence "for at least the next few weeks." She also informed Warren that her absences the previous two days had been due to her own illness. Respondent did not submit a leave request form to Warren prior to taking sick leave. Respondent did submit a Leave of Absence Medical Documentation Form to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Retirement/Leave/Unemployment Compensation ("Leave Office") on February 5, 2013, containing her physician's certification that she was ill and recommending a leave of absence from February 4, 2013, to March 1, 2013. Because she was requesting approval of leave for less than 30 days' duration, under the UTD Contract, Respondent should have filed her leave request with Warren rather than with the Leave Office. UTD Contract Article XIV, section 2, paragraph A., governing notification in the event of teacher absence, states in pertinent part: When a teacher, for whom an emergency temporary instructor is employed, will be absent from work, due to illness or injury or due to personal reasons, he/she shall notify the supervising administrator (or designee), as soon as possible, but no later than one hour before the start of his/her scheduled workday, in order that an emergency temporary instructor can be employed or other arrangements made. If said absence/leave is for a specified period of time, no further notice is necessary. In the event of a change in this specified period of absence, the employee will proceed, pursuant to the stipulations herein. Where an absent teacher does not notify his/her supervising administrator, as stipulated herein, and where there are not extenuating circumstances, as determined by the supervising administrator, such teacher will have the option to utilize personal leave or leave without pay. However, such determination by the supervising administrator shall not be made arbitrarily. UTD Contract, art. XIV, § 2.A. (emphasis added). Article XIV, section 10, governs sick leave without pay for illness. Paragraph C. of that section states: "[e]mployees whose illness requires an absence of over 30 days must file an application for extended sick leave indicating the anticipated length of such absence and supported by a statement from competent medical authority." This leave request would be filed with the Leave Office. However, because Respondent did not request sick leave for a period exceeding 30 days, this provision was not applicable to her leave request. Notwithstanding, Respondent's leave request was reviewed by a medical consultant for Miami-Dade County Public Schools and ultimately was denied. Apparently, some time elapsed before the Leave Office forwarded Respondent's leave request and denial decision to Warren. Warren testified: "I didn't get the request until much afterwards, you know, after she had been out several days " Even after Warren received Respondent's leave request form and denial from the Leave Office, more time passed before she notified Respondent. It was not until March 1, 2013, that Warren sent Respondent a letter informing her that her leave request had been denied and that her absences for the entire month of February were unauthorized, thus warranting her dismissal on the basis of job abandonment. At approximately the same time Warren notified Respondent that her leave request was denied, Warren also notified Respondent, by separate email, that she had incorrectly submitted her leave request to the Leave Office, instead of submitting it to her (Warren). On the same day that Warren notified Respondent that her leave request had been denied, Respondent submitted another leave request form and a medical documentation form to Warren, retroactively requesting approval of her sick leave taken between February 4 to March 18, 2013, due to her own illness. Warren denied the request that same day, citing the medical consultant's determination as the basis for the denial. Warren's letter did not cite an independent basis for the denial. Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the medical consultant's determination to deny the request. Respondent returned to work on March 4, 2013. She was tardy that day and the following day. On March 6, 2013, a CFR was held. The CFR originally had been scheduled for February 5, 2013, but when Respondent took leave, it was rescheduled. At the meeting, Respondent was apprised that her tardies and absences were excessive and that they, along with her failure to adhere to the other previously issued directives, constituted gross insubordination. On March 13, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent's Criminal History Petitioner presented evidence that in August 2012, a records check for Respondent was generated after information was received from Petitioner's Fingerprinting Office indicating that Respondent had been arrested in January 2011 for violation of a protective injunction and in July 2011 for battery. However, this evidence consisted solely of hearsay. Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay evidence establishing that these arrests occurred. Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011. She acknowledged that she was arrested for battery in July 2011. She testified, credibly, that the arrest occurred over the July 4th holiday and that she timely reported this arrest by calling Petitioner's instructional staffing office. Respondent credibly testified that the charge was not prosecuted and ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not present any competent or credible evidence to refute Respondent's testimony on these points. Respondent's Defenses Respondent asserts that she was not tardy as frequently in the 2011-2012 school year as Petitioner asserts. She questions the accuracy of Surrancy's and others' recordkeeping regarding her tardiness. However, she did not present any specific evidence to show that Petitioner's records of her tardiness in the 2011-2012 were inaccurate; thus, her position on that point is essentially speculative. She also claims that Surrancy did not treat her fairly or equitably during the 2011-2012 school year. Specifically, she asserts that Surrancy had the authority and flexibility to adjust her workday schedule so that she did not have to cover a homeroom class, thus allowing her to arrive at work later, but that Surrancy unfairly chose not to do so. Respondent further asserts that Surrancy had provided such accommodation to another teacher in a previous school year. Thus, Respondent claims that Surrancy treated her unfairly.15/ However, Surrancy testified, persuasively, that she could not have relieved Respondent of having a homeroom in order to enable her to arrive later in the workday because instructional personnel, other than coaches and co-teachers, were assigned homeroom or other professional duties that required them to be at school during regular workday hours. Thus, there was no one else available to assume Respondent's homeroom class responsibilities.16/ Respondent also asserts that Surrancy treated her disparately and unfairly by singling her out for discipline for her tardies, while not disciplining others who also were often tardy. However, even if that were the case, it does not excuse Respondent's tardies or provide a basis for Surrancy to decline to enforce school policies with respect to Respondent. Respondent also asserts that she was not afforded the FMLA leave to which she was legally and contractually entitled. Specifically, she argues that she filed FMLA leave forms stating the need for intermittent leave to care for her son, so that for the days on which she was tardy, the number of minutes by which she was tardy should have been counted as leave under the FMLA. Respondent testified, credibly, that she did not purposely refuse to follow the directives given her by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards, and that her tardies during both school years were the result of her having to provide medical care for her young son and take him to daycare, then commute in heavy traffic to the worksites. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner claimed that Respondent was insubordinate because she did not adhere to directives to call the school if she was going to be tardy, Respondent credibly countered that she often would call in, only to be put on hold for some time and then told that the administrator she was attempting to reach was not available; thus, she started sending text messages instead to ensure that her message was received. Regarding the arrest reporting issue, Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011, and testified that she timely reported her July 2011 arrest to the appropriate authority. Findings of Ultimate Fact In these consolidated proceedings, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment17/ as a teacher on the basis of just cause——specifically, gross insubordination and misconduct in office.18/ As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.33 and rules 6A-5.056; and 6B-1.001 and 6A-10.080; and 6B-1.006 and 6A-10.081. Gross Insubordination Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's conduct in accruing an extensive number of tardies during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years constituted gross insubordination. Although Respondent did submit leave request forms estimating the frequency and duration of FMLA-covered leave she would need in order to care for her son, the evidence shows that she was tardy far more frequently than supported by any of the forms she submitted. In order to accommodate an employee's FMLA request, Petitioner must be able to rely on the information the employee provides on the FMLA leave form. If the information provided on the form is inaccurate, Petitioner is neither required nor authorized to consider undocumented time away from the work site as leave covered under the FMLA.19/ While it is admittedly difficult to precisely predict when illness will occur, under any circumstances, the forms Respondent submitted did not cover the frequency of her tardies incurred in the 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013 school years.20/ As addressed above, it appears that Respondent was the victim of a coalescence of unfortunate personal circumstances that interfered with her employment. Nonetheless, the fact remains that she was repeatedly put on notice by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards that her continued tardiness would constitute gross insubordination. Any measures that Respondent purportedly took to rectify the circumstances, such as enlisting the help of a friend to take her son to daycare, apparently were unsuccessful. Respondent had the option in the 2011-2012 school year to transfer to another school to address the morning commute issues, but she chose not to. Although she had legitimate personal and professional reasons for choosing to remain at HMS, the fact remains that she elected not to pursue a course of action that may have addressed the problematic circumstances she found herself in. Under these circumstances, the undersigned concludes, albeit reluctantly, that Respondent's conduct——which took place over a period of two school years, after frequent admonitions, and after she had been placed on notice several times that her continued conduct would constitute gross insubordination——does, in fact, constitute gross insubordination. With respect to Respondent's absences in February 2013, the evidence indicates that Petitioner's Leave Office and Principal Warren unnecessarily delayed notifying Respondent that her leave request for February 2013 had been denied. The evidence gives rise to the inference that Respondent may have cut her leave short and returned to the work site had she been timely informed that her request had been denied. Moreover, Petitioner presented no competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the Leave Office's denial of Respondent's request, or for Warren's denial of Respondent's retroactive request on the same basis. Under these circumstances, the undersigned determines that Respondent's absences for the month of February 2013 should not be considered unexcused. However, even without considering these absences, Respondent's repeated tardiness over an extended period of time without proper leave documentation and after extensive prior notice of the consequences, is sufficient to establish gross insubordination. Misconduct in Office As more fully discussed below, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed misconduct in office under both versions of rule 6A-5.056 in effect in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, respectively. Specifically, Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession because her conduct caused her to lose the respect and confidence of her colleagues. In particular, Respondent's frequent tardiness substantially undermined Surrancy's confidence in her reliability, and, thus, impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness over the course of the 2012-2013 school year also constituted misconduct in office. Again, she violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession by failing to maintain the respect and confidence of her colleagues. Respondent's frequent tardiness adversely affected Warren's confidence in her reliability. Additionally, on the days when Respondent's tardiness necessitated her students being moved to another teacher's classroom, her students' learning environment was disrupted, and her own ability and that of her colleagues to effectively perform their duties was reduced. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was impaired. Petitioner also charged Respondent with violating Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, which provides that all employees are representatives of the Miami-Dade County School District and requires employees to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Respondent's frequent tardies over an extended period of time gave the appearance of disregard for school policies and did not reflect credit on her or on the school district. Moreover, Respondent did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when they had to be moved to another teacher's classroom due to her tardiness.21/ Accordingly, Respondent violated Policy 3210. Respondent also violated Policy 3210.01, Petitioner's Code of Ethics. As found above, she did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when she was so tardy that they had to be moved to another classroom. However, Respondent did not violate Policy 3430, Leaves of Absence. For the reasons discussed above, Respondent's absences in February 2013 should not have been determined unexcused; thus, she did not violate Policy 3430. Respondent also did not violate Policy 3121.01, Employment Standards and Fingerprinting of Employees. To the extent Petitioner argues that Respondent lacks good moral character based on having been arrested, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding her arrests or failure to timely report them as required by school board policy. Respondent acknowledged that she had been arrested in July 2011 but testified that she had timely reported it, and that the charge ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not offer any competent evidence22/ to counter Respondent's testimony, which is deemed credible and persuasive. Factual Basis for Recommended Sanction The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not purposely set out to violate school policies and Department of Education rules, but that circumstances coalesced such that Respondent found herself in the extremely difficult position of having to care for her very ill son and take him to daycare, then undertake a lengthy commute in morning traffic, without enough time to accomplish both. As unfortunate and trying as those circumstances were, they do not excuse Respondent from complying with the crucial and reasonable requirement that employees arrive to work on time.23/ Nonetheless, the evidence establishes that Respondent is an innovative, proficient teacher in the critical subject areas of science and math, and that she cares about performing her job well——to the extent that she declined an out-of-field teaching assignment, in part due to concern that she would not perform effectively in that assignment. As such, it is reasonable to infer that under less demanding circumstances, such as having a shorter commute or a later workday starting time, Respondent would perform her teaching duties proficiently and professionally. The circumstances in this case warrant upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013- 2014 school year, and denying back pay for the full period of her suspension. However, given the very trying circumstances Respondent faced in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, and because the evidence indicates that under less oppressive circumstances Respondent likely would be an innovative, proficient, and professional teacher, the undersigned believes that terminating Respondent's employment would be excessively harsh and that Petitioner would lose a good teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013-2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of her suspension; and reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014- 2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 31st day of March, 2014
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Blondell Williams, was a fifth grade teacher at Poinciana Park Elementary School (PPES) in Miami, Florida. She was under a continuing contract as an elementary teacher for petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). She has been a teacher in the school system since 1981. On March 18, 1987 the Board voted to suspend Williams without pay effective that date for "misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty and gross insubordination." Its decision resulted in Williams requesting an administrative hearing. She has remained suspended from her job without pay during the pendency of this proceeding. The charges are based upon three counts of alleged illicit misconduct as set forth in the Amended Notice of Charges issued on February 13, 1988. The alleged illicit conduct generally includes consumption of an alcoholic beverage on campus, sleeping in class, fraudulently obtaining a lunch, excessive tardiness and absenteeism, repeatedly failing to follow various orders, and demonstrating incompetency in the classroom. These charges will be discussed separately hereinafter. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages On February 2, 1987 respondent left campus during lunch hour to visit her father who was ill. When she returned, she was required to sign in on a roster which was in the reception area outside the principal's office. Williams entered the office area and went to the sign-in roster maintained by the principal's secretary, Delois Parker. Sitting next to Parker was Nena Brown, a system aide, and Mary White Blue, a teacher's aide. Williams was carrying a clear plastic cup containing a light pink beverage which she had brought from her car. The cup was then approximately one-quarter filled. After signing in, and while turning around, Williams accidentally spilled the beverage on Brown's leg and hand and on the carpet. Although Brown did not detect the nature of the beverage, Blue and Parker immediately detected the smell of alcohol. Another teacher, Silvia Munoz, then entered the room and also detected the smell of alcoholic beverages. At about the same time, Parker called the principal, Lawrence H. Crawford, out of his adjoining office to observe the incident. After examining the carpet, Crawford concluded that the beverage contained alcohol. Thereafter, he questioned Williams, who admitted she had drunk about a quarter of a cup of "White Mountain Cooler" taken from a bottle in her car. Crawford instructed Williams to bring the bottle to his office, and after examining the label on the bottle, he confirmed it was an alcoholic beverage. At hearing, Williams acknowledged that she had brought a cup of the beverage on campus during school hours and consumed a small amount. According to Williams, the bottle had been left in her car by a friend from the night before, but she denied knowing it contained any alcohol. This contention is not accepted as being credible since the beverage had an alcoholic odor, the label on the bottle reflected its alcoholic content, and Williams acknowledged she knew it was an alcoholic beverage at a conference for the record held on February 3, 1987. Accordingly, it is found that Williams was in the possession of, and consumed, an alcoholic beverage on campus during duty hours. However, the charge that Williams was "under the influence of an alcoholic beverage" while on duty was not established. Sleeping in Class On a warm spring day morning in 1986, the assistant principal of PPES, Terrance Armbruister, had an occasion to visit Williams' classroom. His visit was prompted by Crawford who had directed Armbruister to check out complaints that Williams was sleeping in class. After knocking on her classroom door, he unlocked it, entered and observed Williams with her head resting on her desk. He approached her but Williams did not move. Finally, she raised her head in a startled fashion as if she had just awoken. Armbruister then instructed her to wash her face and refresh herself. On or about March 28, 1986 P. J. Harden, an assistant principal in charge of curriculum at PPES, was monitoring the classroom next to Williams. The two classrooms were divided by a partition. Because of noise caused by students in Williams' classroom, Harden had difficulty monitoring the class. He pulled the partition open and observed Williams with her head on her desk asleep. He watched her sleep for approximately five minutes until a student shook Williams and awoke her. Williams apologized to Harden and promised it would not happen again. According to Harden, this was respondent's reply on every occasion that she was caught sleeping. On the afternoon of November 11, 1986 Harden again had an occasion to visit Williams' classroom while escorting a prospective teacher around the school. He found her asleep even though she was supposed to be teaching a class. To avoid embarrassment, Harden declined to allow the guest to enter the classroom. He then awoke Williams and told her to report to the principal's office. Harden stated that he found Williams sleeping in her classroom on a number of other occasions although he was unable to give specific dates. On each occasion, she was sent to the principal's office and an administrator would be assigned to cover her classroom. At no time did Williams ever give an excuse to Harden for her actions other than saying she had a second job which prevented her from getting a regular night's sleep. No Free Lunches The Amended Notice alleges that during school year 1986-87, Williams was guilty of "fraudulently obtaining and consuming school provided, student lunches." This charge stems from an incident on or about December 11, 1986 when respondent approached the cashier at the school cafeteria and told the cashier to give her a lunch without charge and to record it as being a free lunch given to a student. The cashier complied with Williams' instructions. By chance, the principal learned of this and confronted respondent with the charge. Williams admitted she had obtained an unauthorized free lunch. Her only excuse was that she was short of funds and had seen another teacher do it on one occasion. At Crawford's direction, Williams reimbursed the school for the meal. Excessive Tardiness and Absenteeism The school day at PPES began at 8:15 a.m. each day and lasted until 3:20 p.m. Teachers were expected to be in their classrooms by 8:20 a.m. so that they could greet their students before classes began at 8:30 a.m. Williams was aware of this requirement and was reminded of it from time to time by her supervisors. In addition, teachers were given thirty minutes for lunch. If a teacher left campus during lunch hour, he or she was expected to sign in and out on an attendance roster maintained in the principal's office. Even if a teacher left campus during lunch hour, the lunch period was still only thirty minutes, and any additional absence by a teacher required authorization from the principal's office. Williams was aware of this policy and understood that a failure to comply with these instructions was a violation of school policy. Under school policy, and in accordance with instructions in the teacher's handbook, a teacher was obligated to call the principal's secretary if he or she was going to be late to school. This call was expected to be made prior to 8:00 a.m. so that the principal could assign an administrator or other teacher to the classroom until the teacher reported to work. In addition, if a teacher knew he would be absent from school the following day, he was expected to telephone the principal's secretary before 2:00 p.m. on the day prior to the absence. If the absence was not known until after 2:00 p.m., the teacher was expected to telephone an assigned number between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. that evening, or at 7:00 a.m. on the day of the absence. This enabled the school administration to timely obtain a substitute teacher. Williams was aware of these requirements. During school year 1984-85, Harden was the assistant principal in charge of curriculum at PPES. His responsibilities included counseling and meeting with teachers who were tardy or absent. On or about October 19, 1984 Harden met with Williams concerning her "continuous" tardiness in reporting to school each morning. She was told that the school day for teachers began at 8:15 a.m. Despite this warning, Williams was late to work on October 19, November 29 and December 4, 1984. This prompted another meeting by Harden and respondent on December 4, 1984. Williams was given a memorandum advising her that she had to be at school by 8:15 a.m. each morning. At the meeting, Williams explained she had a second job which lasted late into the night and enabled her to catch only a "catnap" in the early morning hours. Harden instructed her to set her priorities in order and to adhere to the school attendance requirements. Because of continuing tardiness and absences from work, Williams received another memorandum from Harden on January 24, 1985. The memorandum cited Williams for leaving campus on January 12 and 17, 1985 without authorization and being late to work on January 17. The two held a conference for the record on January 31, 1985 concerning these problems. On March 7, 1985 Crawford sent Williams a memorandum stating that he had "serious concerns about (her) tardiness and (her) habit of illegally leaving the campus during the school day." Another conference for the record was held on March 15. At the conference Williams again gave an excuse of having a second job as well as having problems with a boyfriend. She was told that she must comply with attendance requirements and not let the second job interfere with her primary job of teaching. On July 18, 1985 Williams received a memorandum from Harden for reporting late to work on July 17 and missing a homeroom assignment. The memorandum advised her to immediately remedy the situation and offered to help her if assistance was needed. Despite her poor attendance record, Williams was given an "acceptable" rating and recommended for employment in her annual evaluation rendered on May 17, 1985. There was, however, a comment that a "conference for the record for tardies" had been held during the school year. Williams' attendance and punctuality record did not improve the following school year. She was given at least five memoranda between July, 1985 and January, 1986 concerning her tardiness or absences. She was counseled by Armbruister on October 22, 1985 and specifically told to review the faculty handbook concerning attendance requirements. Armbruister spoke with her again concerning the same problems on November 12, 1985. Because the problem persisted, school officials felt compelled to hold a conference for the record on January 27, 1986. At that time, Williams attributed her difficulties to a second job, problems with a boyfriend, a "peeping tom" in the neighborhood who kept her from sleeping, and no telephone. She admitted she was wrong and indicated she would try to do better. Despite this meeting, Williams took an unauthorized leave at lunch on January 31. This prompted a conference with Armbruister the same day to discuss the latest incident. Williams was given a memorandum advising her to review a summary of the conference for the record held four days earlier and to follow the school's recommendations. In school year 1986-87, Williams' erratic attendance and lack of punctuality continued. As of December 16, 1986, which was roughly halfway through the school year, Williams was late or absent forty-three out of seventy- five workdays. Because of this continuing pattern, a conference for the record was held by respondent and Crawford on October 9, 1986. Williams was found to be deficient in the area of professional responsibility and placed on prescription until December 19. This meant she had to fulfill certain conditions by the end of the prescriptive period. Among other things, Williams was required to arrive daily at work by 8:00 a.m., to timely telephone the office about any absences, to submit a written statement explaining each absence, to report to an administrator or office staff member upon arrival to school each morning, to have up-to-date emergency lesson plans, and to read the teacher contract and teacher assessment handbook. In the month of January, 1987, Williams was tardy on eleven mornings and absent from work on six days. In February, she was tardy the morning of February 2. This was also the day that Williams brought the alcoholic beverage on campus during lunch hour. An emergency conference for the record was held the following day, which was her last day at PPES. Failure to Follow Orders The Amended Notice alleges that, during school years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, Williams committed acts of gross insubordination, including . . . repeatedly failing to follow ordered procedures . . . for reporting absences, . . . procedures concerning her morning arrivals at school, . . . procedures documenting absences, . . . procedures concerning lesson plans, records and student report cards, . . . orders to stay awake while (performing) . . . assigned duties, . . . orders concerning tardiness after lunch, (and) . . . orders to not leave the school campus other than during her lunch period. After being placed on prescription on October 10, 1986, Williams was required to fulfill certain requirements enumerated in finding of fact 18. However, she failed to notify an administrator or office staff member upon arrival at school each morning from October 13 through December 15 except for the week of October 13. She also failed to submit a written explanation of her absences on October 27 and 29, November 3, 18, 24 and 25, and December 2 and 3, 1986. She failed further to timely advise the school of absences on October 21 and 29, November 24 and December 2 and 3, 1986. All such failures were in direct contravention of the written prescription. Although Williams contended such violations were not willful, it is found they were intentional. Other than a reference to Williams' failure to timely prepare lesson plans during an undisclosed part of school year 1985-86, and a prescription requiring her to prepare emergency lesson plans in October, 1986, the Board did not establish that Williams repeatedly failed to prepare lesson plans, report cards and other unnamed "records." Williams was observed sleeping in class on two specific occasions during the school years in question. On a third occasion, an administrator observed her with her head down on her desk as if asleep but could not say for sure that she was sleeping. Assistant principal Harden also said Williams was caught sleeping on a number of other occasions but did not identify the dates. There being only three specific times on which Williams was found sleeping, it is found that no direct disobeyel of orders occurred on the part of respondent as to sleeping in class. Williams was given repeated instructions since 1984 to be punctual for work each day. Despite these orders, she continued to be late on numerous occasions between September 1984 and February, 1987. She also failed to timely advise the school concerning her absences or tardiness on many occasions in spite of specific instructions to do so. Finally, after having received a number of oral and written directives, she nonetheless left school on several occasions for more than thirty minutes during the lunch hour without authorization. Incompetency Respondent taught a Chapter One class at PPES. This class is comprised of students needing additional training and instruction in basic skills such as reading and mathematics. It is smaller than a regular class so that the teacher may give the students added instruction and attention. Because of respondent's repeated absenteeism and tardiness over the course of the school years, the children in respondent's class were denied the continuity of their instructional program. This also meant the lesson plans could not be carried out as prepared on those days on which she was late. Therefore, the students continually received a reduced period of instruction. This in turn impaired her effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's Case In 1982, respondent's father became gravely ill and was thereafter bedridden at her mother's home until his death in 1987. According to Williams, her mother cared for him during the day and Williams took her turn at night. She also visited him on occasion during her lunch hour. As a result, she was required to spend long waking hours during the night with her father and to overextend her lunch hour while visiting him during the day. Williams attributed her attendance problems and her falling asleep to the demands of her father. However, Williams never told her superiors of this problem nor did she obtain authorization to leave campus during lunch hour. Just prior to her separation from PPES Williams acknowledged to school officials that she had a drinking problem. She also agreed to attend a clinic for problem drinkers. At hearing she denied having such a problem and said her earlier admission was given solely for the purpose of saving her job. However, she acknowledged attending a drinking clinic for a few days in early 1987. At the school's request, she also took a physical examination in February, 1987. The results are not of record. Williams contended that other teachers were late but were not written up. However, no proof as to this contention was submitted. The Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS) is the standard measure of teacher performance in Dade County. There was no evidence of any negative TADS evaluation of respondent despite her repeated tardiness and absences from school. Respondent's last TADS evaluation covered the period up to and including March 25, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination and incompetency as set forth in this Recommended Order and that she be dismissed as an employee of petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1456 Petitioner: Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in findings of fact 5, 17 and 25. Covered in findings of fact 12-15 and 25. Covered in findings of fact 12-19. Covered in findings of fact 12-19. Covered in findings of fact 12-19. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 25. Covered in findings of fact 25 and 27. Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 26. Covered in finding of fact 26. Rejected as being unnecessary. Accepted to the extent the same is covered in the findings; the remainder is rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29. Covered in finding of fact 29 Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected since respondent's deficiencies constituted incompetency. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected since respondent admitted knowing that the beverage was alcoholic in nature. Partially covered in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Covered in finding of fact 27. Rejected since respondent admitted having a drinking problem during her conference with Dr. Gil on February 3, 1987. Rejected since the Board's basis for dismissing respondent was based on other factors. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire Fontainebleau Park Office Plaza Suite 2A-3 175 Fontainebleau Boulevard Miami, Florida 33172 Lorraine C. Hoffman, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the following facts are found: Respondent Kenneth Neil Watts has been employed by the Levy County School Board for ten years. He has continuously been assigned to Yankeetown School where he has taught seventh and eighth grade math, science and physical education. He has been on continuing contract status since 1975. Prior to coming to Yankeetown, he had an additional three years of teaching experience. On August 20, 1981, the first day of school for students, respondent came to school a little late. Harvey Markham, the Principal of Yankeetown School, believed that he smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. He had a conference with respondent and the building representative for the Levy County Educational Association, Barbara Delores Gaitanis, was present at this conference. Mr. Markham accused respondent of being inebriated and respondent denied that he had been drinking any alcoholic beverage: Respondent became very upset from his conversation with Mr. Markham, did not feel that he could go into his classroom in that upset condition and asked if he could be relieved from his duties on that day. Respondent then drove himself home. Nothing was placed in respondent's personnel file concerning this incident. Ms. Gaitanis did not notice any smell of alcohol from the respondent, and did not notice anything unusual about respondent's physical appearance. Mr. Markham believed he smelled alcohol and noted that respondent's face was flushed and his eyes were bloodshot. Respondent was not slurring his speech or staggering. On December 9, 1981, respondent did not report for work. This was the first occasion when respondent had not given prior adequate notice of his absence. The school called respondent's residence, respondent answered the phone and said that he had overslept and would be in later. Respondent's words during that conversation were somewhat slurred. Respondent's wife later called in and reported that respondent would not be in that day. Mr. Markham asked respondent to go to a doctor that day and to bring him a note from the doctor. Respondent did go to a doctor and brought Mr. Markham a paid receipt for the visit. Two students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on or about December 18, 1981, the last day of school before the Christmas holidays. These students did not notice any change in respondent's physical appearance or behavior on that occasion. Three other students believed they smelled alcohol on respondent's breath on several occasions. They could not recall the dates. On such occasions, respondent showed no difference in behavior or physical appearance. Two teachers who had worked with respondent for ten years and saw him on a daily basis, sometimes in the morning, at lunchtime and again at the end of the school day, never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. One of these teachers specifically remembered seeing respondent on the last day before the Christmas holidays. Three teachers' aides employed at Yankeetown School for 6, 4 and 2 1/2 years respectively, observed respondent on a daily basis--sometimes three times a day--and never smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. Twelve students who had respondent as a teacher for two or three periods a day on a daily basis during the 1981-82 school year never noticed the odor of alcohol from the respondent. Many of these students had respondent as a teacher during the first and second periods of the day and would have been present both on the day preceding the Christmas holidays and on April 19th, the day of his suspension. On April 19, 1982, Principal Markham's secretary noticed the smell of alcohol on respondent's breath as he was taking roll in his classroom. Mr. Markham called respondent to his office and building representative Gaitanis was again present. Markham accused respondent of being intoxicated, respondent denied that he had been drinking, and Markham then gave respondent the option to take a breathalizer examination. Respondent replied that he would do so if he could do it locally and did not have to travel to Bronson. Bronson is some thirty-five miles from Yankeetown and respondent did not have a car on April 19th. Mr. Markham did not order respondent to take the breathalizer exam. Mr. Markham sent respondent to the teachers' lounge and then asked his secretary to drive respondent home. Ms. Gaitanis noticed no odor of alcohol during the conference between respondent and Mr. Markham. A teacher's aide who saw respondent in the teachers' lounge at about 10:00 a.m. on April 19th and sat three to four feet away from him noticed no odor of alcohol. Mr. Markham admitted that respondent did not slur his speech, stagger or otherwise appear intoxicated in his behavior. He did observe that respondent's eyes were bloodshot and his face was flushed. Mr. Markham's secretary smelled the odor of alcohol while driving respondent home, but did not notice anything peculiar in respondent's behavior or appearance. Respondent does not like and does not drink hard liquor. He sometimes drinks a beer or two on the weekends or in the afternoon or evening after school. Respondent does not drink beer or alcohol at school or in the mornings before school. His eyes are often bloodshot and he occasionally has trouble sleeping at night. On Sunday, April 18th, respondent had been at the beach in the sun all day. Yankeetown is a small town with a population of approximately 500. If a resident had a drinking problem, it is probable that it would be common knowledge throughout the community. There was no testimony from parents, teachers or other community members that they had heard that respondent came to school intoxicated or with alcohol on his breath, or otherwise had a drinking problem. Principal Markham's "Instructional Evaluation" of respondent for the 1981-82 school year was prepared on March 18, 1982. As was true for the previous years' evaluations, respondent received a "Currently Satisfactory," the highest rating available, in all areas under the headings of "Teaching Competencies" and "Personnel and Professional Qualities." The subareas in which respondent was rated included "planning," "teaching techniques," "classroom management," "accurate and punctual in routine duties, records and reports" and "complies with school, county and state policies." Respondent took eleven full days and five half days of sick and personal leave during the 1981-82 school year. Other than the one December 9th occasion, respondent gave adequate notice of his absences. His leave days were always approved and he was paid for each of them. Mr. Markham felt that respondent's absences were a "minor" problem and he would not have recommended termination on this basis alone. He discussed respondent's absences with him on one occasion, but did not place anything in writing in respondent's personnel file. Respondent prepared lesson plans for substitutes to use during his absences and these plans were submitted to Principal Markham. Markham recalled discussing inadequate lesson plans with respondent on one or two occasions, but admitted that he had not previously placed much emphasis on lesson plans. No memoranda were placed in respondent's personnel file concerning lesson plans, and respondent could not recall any discussion with Mr. Markham regarding the adequacy of his lesson plans.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the charges contained in the April 30, 1982, "Recommendation of Dismissal" be DISMISSED, and that respondent be immediately reinstated with back pay from May 7, 1982, the date of his suspension without pay. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Anthony Cleveland General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Francis E. Rowell Superintendent School Board of Levy County, Florida Post Office Box 128 Bronson, Florida 32621-0128
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's employment contract with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the school board responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees at the School. The School, located at 5000 Orange Grove Boulevard, North Fort Myers, is completely fenced in with a gate at the front entrance, which can be left open during normal school hours. After incidents at Columbine High School and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, security at the School was heightened. Respondent is a security specialist at the School and has been employed at the School for almost 30 years. Respondent first worked at the School as a security guard under CETA, a federally-funded training program, starting in 1979. She was then hired as a school board employee. Respondent worked in the school clinic for a short time, but has spent the majority of her time as a security specialist. One of Respondent's primary jobs as a security specialist was to provide security at the front gate of the school. In fact, the majority of Respondent's assignments put her at the front gate, although the School has made efforts to alter her schedule, when possible, so that she would not be stuck in one location. Due to some injuries she had experienced, however, Respondent often found assignment at the front gate to be the most conducive to her ambulatory constraints. On November 10, 2004, Respondent was at the front gate pursuant to her assignment for that day. While she was at the gate, a visitor, Herbert Wiseman, drove up in an automobile. Respondent had known Wiseman for many years and recognized him as a "dignitary" from the school district offices. Respondent waved Wiseman through the gate without stopping him and allowed him to proceed to the front office unannounced.1 This action was in contravention of School policies which required Respondent to stop all cars coming into the School and required an announcement of all officials from the district offices. However, Respondent felt her actions were not inappropriate, because she knew the individual and knew him not to be a threat of any kind. On that same day, a former student, Jamar Barnar, drove his vehicle onto the School campus without being stopped. Barnar parked his car, walked into the School property, and walked freely through the halls until he was seen and identified by a School employee. Barnar ran to his car and drove off campus. Respondent said she thought Barnar was still a student and just let him pass through the gate. Again, that action is in derogation of School policies, but Respondent says she has a good relationship with the students and sometimes allows them to circumvent the rules when she feels it would not be a threat to anyone. Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by assistant principal Drake regarding the incidents on November 10, 2004. Respondent signed the letter acknowledging receipt, but did not ask for a union representative or otherwise attempt to grieve the letter. In fact, Respondent gracefully accepted the letter and agreed to be more vigilant in the future. The more credible testimony at final hearing established that Respondent was given the opportunity to have union representation, if she desired it. On March 8, 2005, there was another incident relating to security at the School which involved Respondent. Once again Respondent was posted at the front gate. She had been advised that two visitors were expected that day and that she should watch for them, allow them through the gate after questioning, and announce their arrival via radio contact with the front office. When the visitors (a Lee County Sheriff's officer--not in uniform--and a person from the federal Homeland Security Division) arrived, Respondent did not stop them. The visitors, on their own accord, stopped to see if Respondent would question them. She apparently did not. Rather, the visitors were allowed to go unannounced to the front office where they complained to the principal about the lack of security at the front gate. A letter of warning was issued by Principal Lunger and Assistant Principal Drake concerning the March 8, 2005, incident. Respondent was called into the office to review the letter, discuss its content, and sign it. She was offered the right to have a union representative present, but opted not to have one. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the letter of warning by her signature thereon. The letter says it is a "second written notification of a serious performance deficiency." Another letter of warning was issued to Respondent dated February 27, 2008. The basis for this letter of warning was that Respondent allowed a student to leave campus on February 19, 2008, without written permission. The student, who was well known to Respondent, advised Respondent that he had verbal permission from a teacher. However, School policies only allow administration or the front office to allow a student to leave campus. Respondent was aware of the policy, but again thought her relationship with the student was sufficient justification for allowing him to leave. Respondent was offered the right to have a union representative present when the letter of warning was discussed and signed, but she again opted out. Rather, she very amiably acquiesced to the statement of violation and signed the letter without further grievance. A letter of reprimand was issued by Assistant Principals Ken Burns and Steve Casolino dated February 29, 2008,2 relating to incidents that had occurred the previous week. On February 20, 2008, a student was seen on campus who was not supposed to be there and who had not been announced per School policies. Respondent says she had waved the student through, despite knowing it was against policy, because she knew him and had earlier allowed him to leave campus. The student (C.C.) should not have been on campus at that time due to some reason not fully disclosed at final hearing. Nevertheless, upon re-entry to the campus (allegedly with another person in his automobile), C.C. should have been stopped and questioned as to his reason for being on campus. On February 21, 2008, a student was attempting to leave campus without permission. Assistant Principal Casolino began to pursue the student and also called on the radio for security assistance. None of the three guards on duty (including Respondent) answered his call. Casolino called on the radio for the front gate to be shut so the student could not leave; it was not shut. Respondent maintains that she was keeping watch on an unauthorized car that had entered campus at that time. She opted to stay near the car, because it presented the higher security risk. Respondent did not explain why she did not answer the radio call. Respondent was absent from work immediately following the February 20 and 21, 2008, incidents. Upon her return to work on February 28, 2008, Respondent was called to the front office to discuss the letter of reprimand. She was offered the right to have a union representative, but declined. In fact, Respondent was the union representative for the School at that time, although it is unclear whether she could have represented herself or whether she was qualified to do so. There were three copies of the letter presented to Respondent, one of which was to be retained by her. Assistant Principals Burns and Casolino signed each of the three copies. On her copy, Respondent wrote the words "Under Protest" and did not sign it at that time.3 At some point in time, Respondent signed a copy of the letter of reprimand. Respondent remembers that her copy of the letter with "Under Protest" on it was torn up or crumpled and put in the waste basket. However, the photocopy of that letter presented at final hearing does not appear to have been torn up or crumpled. There is another version of the letter with signatures by Burns, Casolino, and Respondent (who signed twice) with the words "Under Protest" on it, but it is obviously not the same one that Respondent left with Burns and Casolino at the meeting. This second letter appears to be Respondent's copy of the fully signed letter upon which she later wrote "Under Protest." There are three different versions of the February 29, 2008, letter in evidence: (1) a letter with no signature by Respondent and the words "Under Protest" on it; (2) a letter signed by Burns, Casolino and Respondent--twice; and (3) a letter signed by Burns, Casolino and Respondent with the words "under protest" and "second copy" handwritten on them. At any rate, Respondent at some point signed the letter of reprimand and did not further file a grievance or complaint about the letter. However, Respondent did draft a letter to Burns and Casolino explaining her actions vis-à-vis the February 20 and 21, 2008, incidents. The letter, which is not signed, is an explanation of her actions, but Respondent did not base a formal grievance on the letter. Each employee of the School Board is evaluated annually concerning their work performance.4 Various categories of job duties are discussed in each evaluation and graded on a scale ranging from U-Unacceptable Level of Performance, to I-Inconsistently Practiced, and then E-Effective Level of Performance Observed. Respondent's 2003-2004 evaluation primarily contained grades of "E," indicating her level of performance was effective or acceptable. However, she had a "U" in the area of "Meets acceptable attendance and punctuality schedule." Comments on that evaluation say "Good worker, but absent too frequently." Respondent was absent 84.50 hours (over two full weeks) during the 2003-2004 school year. The 2004-2005 evaluation contained no "U" grades, but had "I" grades in three areas. There were no written comments on that evaluation form. The evaluation for school year 2005-2006 is almost completely at the effective level of performance, except for one area, "Utilizes leave only when necessary." Comments on the form say, "Total hours absent, 116.5. See below." The bottom of the form indicates 68.5 hours of sick leave, 27.5 hours of personal leave, and 20.5 hours of leave without pay for the period July 1, 2005, through March 23, 2006. This equates to 14.5 work days absent from the job. For the 2006-2007 school year, Respondent's evaluation again had two "I" grades in the areas called: (1) Achieves expected results with few errors; and (2) Utilizes leave only when necessary. The comments section again addresses Respondent's absences. She had 98.5 hours (12.3 total days) of leave; and 26.5 of those hours were without pay, meaning she had used up her allotted leave time. Respondent's last (or latest) evaluation indicates five areas with unacceptable levels of performance. Included in those areas are reviews of attendance and dependability. The comments section refers to the February 27, 2008, letter of warning; the February 29, 2008, letter of reprimand; and the December 5, 2007, warning letter. For that school year, Respondent had 136.25 hours absent, including 62.5 hours of leave without pay. This equates to 17 days absent, with over eight days of leave in excess of her allotted allowance. Respondent is accused of having excessive absences from work. This is a critical issue for the School because, due to budget cuts, there are only three security guards for a campus of over 2,200 students. There had been four guards previously, so teachers were being asked to supplement security by acting as de facto guards when possible. The presence of all three security guards each day was critical to maintaining a high level of security. On April 2, 2007, Respondent had sustained an injury to her right foot. Despite X-rays being taken soon after the injury, the fact that Respondent had fractures in her foot was not immediately ascertained. As a result, Respondent had a period of time that her ability to work was affected by her injury. She was under treatment by medical professionals during the entire 2007-2008 school year. While Respondent was recovering from her injury, the School made sure she had access to a golf cart for moving around campus. It was during this period of convalescence that the School made a conscious decision to assign Respondent to the front gate so that she would be in a position that did not require as much mobility. The excessive number of absences by Respondent caused problems for the School as far as security was concerned. Although the reasons for some of the absences was obviously due to the injury she sustained, there were also a number of absences related to other known (i.e., migraine headache) or unknown reasons. The concerns about Respondent's attendance were taken to the Lee County School District's Human Resources Department by Principal Lunger. Lunger did not know how else to handle the lack of security caused by Respondent's absences. Use of teachers as replacement security guards was simply not an effective means of addressing the problem. Further, the School Board did not have funds available to hire a replacement each time Respondent was absent. The absentee issue was a legitimate concern of the School and was part of the basis for deciding to terminate Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Lee County School Board, upholding the termination of Respondent, Debra Ballard's, employment for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 23rd day of April, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a classroom teacher by Petitioner under a continuing contract. Respondent has been a classroom teacher for nineteen (19) years, and has been employed by Petitioner for the last eighteen (18) years. Petitioner taught primarily at elementary school level but, at various times, she has also taught at the high school level. Respondent was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Petitioner in 1973. Respondent has never been, other than this proceeding, the subject of any formal disciplinary proceeding during the time she has been employed by the Petitioner. On September 25, 1957, Respondent brought three (3) students to Helen Ramsey, Assistant Principal, Port St. Joe High School, for discipline due to their alleged misbehavior in the Respondent's classroom. The more credible evidence shows that Respondent insisted that Ramsey discipline the students in her presence. The reason for Respondent's insistence was that students previously sent by Respondent for discipline had bragged to other students that no punishment had been administered and this created further disciplinary problems in her classroom. Ramsey requested that Respondent leave and let her "handle the situation." Due to Respondent's insistence, Ramsey discussed the matter with Respondent alone in Ramsey's office. After this discussion, Ramsey agreed to question the students. Two (2) students admitted misbehaving in the classroom and were paddled. The third student denied misbehaving in the classroom and Ramsey refused to proceed any further until she had questioned the student without Respondent being present. After further discussion, and with Ramsey refusing to proceed any further, Respondent left. There is insufficient evidence to show that Ramsey ever gave Respondent a direct order to leave her office or the reception area but only requested that Respondent leave and allow Ramsey "to handle the situation" which Respondent did, after a lengthy and heated discussion with Ramsey. Ramsey had not experienced a problem, such as this, with Respondent before and, although Ramsey saw no apparent reason for Respondent's "unusual" attitude, Ramsey did not question Respondent at any time concerning her attitude. The entire incident between Ramsey and Respondent lasted about thirty (30) minutes, including the five (5) to ten (10) minutes Respondent spent with Ramsey without the students in the beginning and the ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes Respondent was in Ramsey's office while Ramsey discussed the matter with students and paddled two (2) of them. On September 25, 1986, Edwin Williams, (Williams) Principal, Port St. Joe High School, was away from school, and therefore Ramsey reported the incident to Superintendent Walter Wilder (Wilder). When Williams returned on September 26, 1987, Ramsey reported the incident to him. On September 26, 1987, when Williams, became aware of the incident, he sent an aide, Ellie Padgett (Padgett) to Respondent's room to ask Respondent to report to Williams' office and for Padgett to stay with Respondent's class. Upon receiving the message from Padgett, despondent advised Padgett that she would go to Williams' office the next period which was her free period. While Padgett was in Respondent's room, Juanita Powell (Powell), Williams' Secretary, paged Respondent on the intercom and there was credible evidence that Respondent informed Powell that she would come to Williams' office shortly. After Padgett returned to Williams' office, Powell went to Respondent's room to inform Respondent that Williams wanted to see her. Respondent told Powell that she had planned on giving treats to her students at the end of the period and would come when she finished. After Powell returned to Williams' office, Williams went to Respondent's room and told her he wanted to see her in his office. There was credible evidence that Williams was angry with Respondent and expressed his anger when he demanded that she come to his office right away. Respondent went to Williams' office in about five (5) minutes after he demanded that she come. This gave Williams time to return to his office and "cool-off." No one advised Respondent what Williams wanted to speak to her about or that the matter needed immediate attention. Upon arrival at William's office, Williams confronted Respondent with the report of the incident regarding the students given to him by Ramsey. A heated discussion ensued and Williams told Respondent to leave his office and the school, and then Williams proceeded to Wilder's office. After Williams left, Respondent went to her classroom to gather up her personal things. While gathering up her personal things, Respondent was advised by Mr. Osborne, a school employee, to report back to Williams' office. Respondent reported to William's office and shortly thereafter Williams and Wilder arrived. Wilder advised Respondent that they were dealing with "what was potentially a serious disciplinary problem." At this juncture, Wilder directed Respondent to respond to a series of questions concerning the Ramsey incident which Respondent declined to answer, but addressed her remarks to Williams concerning what Respondent felt was Williams' unfair treatment of her during this incident. Respondent continued to discuss the matter with Williams even after he again directed her to leave the school premises. However, Respondent did leave the school in about ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes. Respondent was not offered an opportunity to have another teacher present to witness the conversation during this meeting with Williams and Wilder. Respondent did comply, although belatedly, with: (a) the request from Ramsey to leave her office; (b) Williams' request to leave his office and the school premises and, (c) Williams' request to report to his office. There was credible evidence that Respondent's failure to notify the school secretary of her absence from duty on September 12, 1983, was due to Respondent's belief that her husband, Clarence Monette, had advised the secretary of her absence. There was credible evidence to show that Respondent was dividing her time between Highland Elementary School and Port St. Joe High School on May 22, 1986, and that Respondent's reason for not reporting to Highlands on May 22, 1986, was due to her staying at the high school to attend an art festival with the children. There was credible evidence that on September 23, 1986, Respondent was absent but made arrangements to have her lesson plan delivered to the school secretary and for a substitute teacher; however, Respondent failed to notify school authorities that she had engaged a substitute teacher which resulted in the school engaging a substitute teacher also. Respondent has had an annual formal evaluation for each of the eighteen (18) years she has taught in the Gulf County School district and, during that entire time, no school administrator has ever indicated that she was guilty of insubordination or that she had willfully neglected her duties. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent intended to violate school policies or to disobey an order of her superiors. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's material acts and omissions were willful.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Gulf County, enter a Final Order dismissing all charges filed against the Respondent, Audrey Monette and that Respondent be restored to her position as a continuing contract employee of the Gulf County School Board, and that she receive back pay for the entire period she has been in a non-pay status because of these charges. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-4471 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. First and second sentence adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12 and 13 except for that part of second sentence regarding Respondent ignoring Williams' orders which is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of paragraph 3 adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14 and 16 except for that part of the fifth sentence concerning Respondent calling Williams an "Uncle Tom" and that part of sixth sentence concerning Respondent charging Williams with believing Ramsey in preference to her which I reject as immaterial and irrelevant. Reject that portion of paragraph 4 concerning Respondent's refusal to leave Williams' office as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of paragraph 4 is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. 5-6. Covered in background material. 7-8. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Not stated as a finding of fact but as recitation of testimony. However, it is covered in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Not stated as a finding of fact but as a recitation of testimony. However, it is covered in Finding of Fact 6. 10-11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 14-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 16-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 20-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Not stated as a finding of fact but a recitation of testimony but covered in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. 31-32. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Philip J. Padovano Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 B. Walter Wilder, Superintendent Gulf County School Board Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
