The Issue Whether Petitioner, Duval County School Board, had just cause to suspend Respondent without pay for seven days for the reasons specified in the agency action letter.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Duval County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Sawdy was employed as a teacher at Lake Shore in Duval County, Florida, from 2011 through June 2018. During the 2016-2017 school year, Mr. Sawdy taught civics to seventh grade students. During the time he was a teacher at Lake Shore, Mr. Sawdy received an effective or highly effective rating on his performance evaluations. Mr. Sawdy has never received discipline during his tenure as a teacher. Specifically, during the time that he had worked at Lake Shore, he was never disciplined for failure to adequately supervise students. After the 2017-2018 school year, Mr. Sawdy relocated to North Carolina and is serving as a teacher there. Background The incident that served as the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 2, 2017. Mr. Sawdy’s classroom was located in a portable unit with windows at Lake Shore. Generally, Mr. Sawdy would have a structured lesson for the class period. However, on this day the students in the class returned from a field trip in the middle of the third period at approximately 1:30 p.m. The students were instructed to go to their designated class and remain there until the fourth class period. The field trip was to the Diamond D Ranch, a farm in Jacksonville, Florida. There were approximately 20 students who went to Mr. Sawdy’s classroom after the field trip. As was the typical case when students returned from a field trip, the students were described as rowdy. As a result, Mr. Sawdy permitted the students to work on note cards and listen to music. The music was from Hamilton, the musical, which was used to teach the students about the historical figure, Alexander Hamilton. Although music was playing, the students could hear each other. The lights were off, but you could see in the room because the windows allowed sufficient ambient light. The School Board alleged that Mr. Sawdy allowed a group of students in his class to participate in an inappropriate game. One of the students from the group included R.G. The group was located at the back of the classroom. The testimony from various witnesses about what happened in the classroom on May 2, 2017, varied in several areas. Student Testimony Student C.A. C.A. testified that when the class returned to the classroom, Mr. Sawdy did not have a specific lesson. He played music and allowed students to move freely. According to the diagram of the room, C.A. was sitting near R.G., with one chair between them, in the group. C.A. testified that he witnessed R.G. lift her shirt, exposing her breasts. C.A. described the event as “flashing” that happened quickly. C.A. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk at the front of the room when R.G. lifted her shirt, which was farther away from R.G. than was C.A. C.A. credibly testified that Mr. Sawdy was strict regarding discipline for inappropriate behavior. If Mr. Sawdy had seen R.G.’s conduct, he would have called her parents or referred her to the principal. C.A. testified that he did not see anyone kissing or touching private parts. At some point during the class, C.A. slapped D.B. on the back of her thigh. C.A. testified that Mr. Sawdy took him outside the classroom to discipline him for hitting D.B., which redirected his behavior. Student D.B. D.B. testified that Mr. Sawdy’s class is usually laid back and there is even less structure after a field trip. After the field trip, Mr. Sawdy instructed students to work on note cards. While music was playing, they could hear each other. While the lights were off, they could see each other because of the lights from the windows. Turning off the lights was a common practice of other teachers at Lake Shore as well. D.B. was sitting at a desk on the opposite side of the group from R.G. D.B. recalled that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk working on his computer. There were students sitting between R.G. and Mr. Sawdy. D.B. testified that she saw K.2/ lick R.G.’s breast, which happened within two seconds. D.B. credibly testified that she did not see anyone else expose their breasts or kiss anyone. Student H.P. H.P. was sitting near the group. She testified that although music was playing, it was not so loud that she could not hear. She testified that she was aware that a game was taking place. However, she did not see anyone kiss anyone, or engage in any inappropriate activity. H.P. testified that Mr. Sawdy was doing paperwork, and she did not see him walk around during class. However, H.P. credibly testified that Respondent would discipline students if he aware that they misbehaved. Student K.M. K.M. was sitting at the same table as H.P., near the group. In fact, she was sitting closer to R.G. than H.P. K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk working on his laptop. However, she saw him walk around the classroom “one or two times.” K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy instructed students that it would be a free day because they had returned from the field trip. During the class, Mr. Sawdy turned on music from Hamilton. K.M. stated that she witnessed C.A. slap D.B.’s thigh and saw Mr. Sawdy remove C.A. from the classroom to discipline him for his actions. Despite her close proximity to the group, K.M. did not see anyone kiss anyone, lift their shirt, or lick anyone. K.M. traveled to Europe for a field trip chaperoned by Mr. Sawdy in June 2018. She testified that he did well as a chaperone. Student C.W. C.W. testified that Mr. Sawdy permitted students to listen to music and hang out after the field trip. C.W. was sitting near the windows, near the corner of the class, but closer to the group than Mr. Sawdy. She characterized the group as “troublemakers.” She stated that Mr. Sawdy warned the group to settle down several times. Despite her criticism of the group, C.W. did not see anyone kiss or lick anyone, or otherwise engage in inappropriate activity. Student J.B. J.B. testified that after the field trip, Mr. Sawdy turned on a video of Bill Nye, “the science guy,” on the television. Since students were not watching the video, Mr. Sawdy turned on music. At some point, Mr. Sawdy told the group of students to quiet down because they were being loud. J.B. testified that Mr. Sawdy would discipline students who misbehaved by talking to them or issuing a referral to the principal’s office. J.B. stated that he was not aware of a game of truth or dare being played at the time. He also credibly testified that he did not see anyone kiss anyone, lift up his or her shirt, or see anyone do anything inappropriate. Student F.G. When F.G. and the other students returned to class, Mr. Sawdy instructed them to watch the Bill Nye video and work on note cards. Music from the musical Hamilton was playing toward the end of class, but it was not too loud. F.G. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk during class, but he walked around a few times. Although F.G. was sitting close to the group, she did not know that any inappropriate activity occurred until a few weeks later. F.G. credibly testified that she did not see anyone dancing, kissing, or engaging in inappropriate touching. F.G. also confirmed the testimony of C.A. and D.B. that Mr. Sawdy would discipline students who misbehaved, beginning with a warning outside the classroom, followed by a phone call to their parents and then, a referral to the principal. None of the students who testified stated that they had concerns for their safety or the safety of other students in the class. Although subpoenaed, the complaining student, K.A.M. did not appear at the final hearing.3/ Mr. Sawdy’s Testimony Mr. Sawdy also testified at the final hearing. He stated that he chaperoned a group of students on a field trip to Diamond D Ranch. When the students returned from the trip, they were instructed to go to his classroom. No other teachers or teaching professionals were in the classroom at that time. Mr. Sawdy testified that students are usually more relaxed after field trips and would benefit from a less restrictive teaching class period. As a result, Mr. Sawdy played music from Hamilton and instructed the students to work on note cards. The lights were off, but you could see because of ambient light. Mr. Sawdy credibly testified that he had no knowledge of any inappropriate conduct in his classroom on May 2, 2017, until Mr. Gottberg told him about the complaint regarding inappropriate activity in his classroom. If he had seen anything inappropriate, he would have addressed the actors accordingly. He described the instance where he counseled C.A. Mr. Sawdy’s testimony was consistent with that of C.A. and D.B., when he testified that he heard a slap, turned in the direction that he heard it and saw C.A. looking strange. He took C.A. outside the classroom and counseled him for hitting D.B. Subsequent to May 2, 2017, Mr. Sawdy planned and chaperoned a field trip to Europe with 10 middle school students, which took place in June 2018. The principal of each student’s school approved the trip to Europe without objection. Furthermore, there were no parents that objected to Mr. Sawdy chaperoning the students on the trip. Specifically, students M.W. (who did not testify at hearing) and K.M. were in the class on the date in question and still attended the trip to Europe without objection from their parents. There is no reason to believe or evidence to support that Mr. Sawdy would not have disciplined the students engaging in the activity alleged if he had knowledge of their conduct. Moreover, based on his experience with the class, there was no indication to Mr. Sawdy that the students would have the propensity to engage in the alleged conduct. The evidence demonstrates that the incident was, at most, a matter of two students surreptitiously engaging in unexpected inappropriate activity. There was no evidence offered to demonstrate that the alleged student conduct harmed the health or safety of the students in the class. Even if it is determined that the allegations on their face would demonstrate actual harm, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect students from such harm. Gerald Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2102; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Investigation Mr. Gottberg was the principal at Lake Shore during the 2016-2017 school year. He testified that there was an expectation that teachers would maintain a safe environment for students through classroom management and disciplinary action when necessary. There was also an expectation, but not a requirement, that classroom instruction would take place from beginning of class until the end of class (bell-to-bell instruction). On May 3, 2017, Mr. Gottberg’s assistant informed him that there was a parent and student that had a complaint about inappropriate student activity in Mr. Sawdy’s classroom that had occurred on May 2, 2017. Mr. Gottberg briefly interviewed the student and ultimately, referred the complaint to the Office of Professional Standards. The student resource officer, Mary Alice Knouse, interviewed three of the 22 students who were in the class on May 2, 2017. Based on her interview of the students, she determined that other than K.A.M. and K.M., no students witnessed any inappropriate conduct. The investigator assigned to investigate the complaint, James Gregory, also interviewed students. He interviewed students involved in the alleged conduct events and randomly selected other students. He did not interview all the students in the classroom on May 2, 2017. Mr. Gottberg was instructed to prepare a report regarding the complaint, and he complied. At the direction of the Office or Professional Standards, but before the student interviews were completed, he recommended that Mr. Sawdy receive Step III or Step IV progressive disciplinary action. Mr. Gottberg described Mr. Sawdy as one of the best teachers at Lake Shore. While Mr. Gottberg was principal, he even approved the 10-day field trip to Europe, which was scheduled to take place after the incident on May 2, 2017. Allegations Not Pled in Notice The School Board made much of the lights being turned off in the room and the music playing. These allegations were not pled in the charges and, thus, may not be relied upon as a basis for the School Board’s action. Even if the School Board had pled allegations regarding the lights and music, the School Board failed to prove that these factors proved that Mr. Sawdy inadequately supervised the students in his classroom. At least five witnesses testified that although the lights were off, there was sufficient light from the windows to see in the classroom. Mr. Gottberg sent an email to the Lake Shore teachers the day following the incident directing them to keep the lights on in the classrooms. However, no witness testified that there was a rule or policy regarding keeping the lights on during classroom instruction prior to the incident. In addition, teachers and students testified that it was a common practice for the lights to be off in the classrooms because sufficient light was available by window. Several witnesses also testified that the music was not so loud that you could not hear. Mr. Sawdy’s Reputation Respondent has a good reputation with other educators and is known to be an effective teacher. Several of those teachers testified at hearing about their experience working with Mr. Sawdy. Zandra Bryant worked on the same team with Mr. Sawdy at Lake Shore for approximately four years. She testified that she had worked at Lake Shore for eight years. She described Mr. Sawdy as “wonderful teacher” who was very organized and attentive. She was also a chaperone for the field trip to Diamond D Ranch and characterized the students as being rowdy when they returned from the field trip. She confirmed Mr. Sawdy’s testimony that it would not be a good time to begin a structured lesson. Mallory Layton also worked with Mr. Sawdy. She described him as role model, attentive to students, including administering discipline when necessary. Similar to Ms. Bryant, she also testified that after a field trip, it is good practice to engage the students in a relaxed activity. Melissa Cash and Kasey Winter testified that Mr. Sawdy was a good teacher who had a respectful relationship with students. Ultimate Findings of Fact There is no question that the allegations were of a sensitive nature. The testimony varied in material aspects, and was not of such weight (preponderance of evidence) that it produced a firm belief that Mr. Sawdy failed to reasonably protect the safety of the students in his classroom. The allegations that students engaged in exposure and licking of private body parts was supported by a preponderance of evidence. However, even though the evidence supports a finding, by a slim margin, that students engaged in inappropriate conduct, it must also be determined whether Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect students from harm. The testimony varied regarding where Mr. Sawdy was located when the student conduct occurred. The testimony was clear and consistent that Mr. Sawdy was in the classroom. D.B., J.B., and H.P. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk doing work. F.G. testified that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk during the class, but walked around a few times. K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy walked around the room one to two times. The totality of the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk at the front of the room during the class period, but he left his desk and walked around a few times. At the final hearing, six witnesses credibly testified that they never saw anyone kiss, lick, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct in Mr. Sawdy’s classroom on May 2, 2017. The evidence also supports that these students were sitting closer to the group and arguably, were in a better position to see the group’s activity. There is no dispute that Mr. Sawdy was not aware that a group of students had engaged in inappropriate conduct in his classroom on May 2, 2017. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Sawdy inadequately supervised students in his classroom on May 2, 2017. Mr. Sawdy walked around the classroom and interacted with students. He had control of students to the extent that he even disciplined a student for playfully hitting another student. The evidence reflects that the alleged student conduct was an isolated event that happened, at most, within one to two seconds. The conduct was quite unusual and could not be reasonably anticipated. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Sawdy failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the students from harm. There was no evidence offered to support a finding by a preponderance of evidence that the student conduct was harmful to any student’s learning, or that the events adversely affected any student’s mental or physical health, or safety. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that there is just cause to suspend Mr. Sawdy without pay for seven days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board: dismiss the charges against Respondent; dismiss the notice of recommendation of issuing a reprimand and suspension without pay for seven days; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or the Collective Bargaining Agreement authorize back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful suspension without pay; Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2019.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a music teacher at Manatee Academy K-8 School (“Manatee”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s employment with the School Board as a teacher began in 2006. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was not the subject of any discipline. She had received overall ratings of “Exceptional” or “Above Expectation” on her teaching evaluation forms. The incidents giving rise to this proceeding occurred on October 18 and 19, 2012, during the 2012-2013 school year. October 18 and 19 Respondent awoke around 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2012, and reported to work at Manatee. That afternoon, Respondent finished her work day at Manatee and left the school sometime after 3:15 p.m. After running some errands, Respondent arrived at her single-family residential home in Fort Pierce, sometime after 5:00 p.m. Respondent shared the home with her long-time boyfriend and fiancé, Dominic Madison (“Madison”). Madison was also a teacher employed by the School Board. At that time, Madison was a band director at a local high school. By the time Respondent got home, Madison had not yet returned home from his work day at the high school. Shortly after arriving home, Respondent sat down at her personal laptop computer to check e-mails and do some work. The computer was connected to the home’s wi-fi network. While working on the computer, Respondent discovered an unfamiliar icon and link to a file on the home network. The icon peaked Respondent’s interest. Upon clicking on the icon, a video opened with Madison’s face. Respondent then observed Madison and a white female engaged in sexual activity in a room inside their home.1/ While Respondent was unsure, it appeared that the female might be a former student of Madison’s who might also be a minor. As she continued watching the video, Respondent recognized the female as one of Madison’s 17-year-old students, K.M. After watching the video, Respondent was devastated, upset, angry, and unable to process what she saw. She called Madison at 6:36 p.m., to confront him about the video and confirm her suspicions that he, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. They spoke for approximately 36 minutes. During the call, they argued, and Madison neither admitted nor denied engaging in sexual activity with K.M. By this point, Respondent was in tears and so upset and completely devastated that she experienced chest pains. After getting off the phone with Madison and while still at home, Respondent called her pastor, Theodore Sanders, for guidance. They spoke around 7:13 p.m., for approximately 14 minutes. Pastor Sanders knew Madison because his children had been members of the band at Madison’s high school. Pastor Sanders was shocked by Respondent’s allegation that Madison had engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. Due to the ramifications of such a “huge allegation,” Pastor Sanders was cautious and wanted to make sure that Respondent was certain about what she saw on the video. It is understandable that Respondent needed some period of time in which to process the situation, given that Madison was her fiancé; they had a long relationship together; and she observed Madison on her personal computer engaging in sexual activity with a minor student in their home. Sometime after 7:30 p.m., Respondent left the home. At 7:26 p.m., Respondent and Madison spoke again on the phone for approximately 38 minutes. Respondent and Pastor Sanders spoke again on the phone at 8:03 p.m. and 8:45 p.m., with such calls lasting one minute and 10 minutes, respectively. In the interim, Respondent spoke again on the phone with Madison for 43 minutes starting at 8:03 p.m. As a teacher, Respondent is a mandatory reporter of child abuse under sections 39.201(2)(a) and 1006.061(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent clearly understood that she had a mandatory obligation to report the sexual activity she saw on the video between Madison and K.M.2/ Respondent and Pastor Sanders discussed the need to report what Respondent saw. There was never any doubt that the abuse needed to be reported. Because of Respondent’s distraught emotional state at the time, they agreed that Pastor Sanders would make the call. Pastor Sanders told Respondent to get off the road and go home. Pastor Sanders then called “911” at some point after they got off the phone at 8:55 p.m., to report the abuse. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that there was almost a four-hour gap from when she first saw the video until the time that Pastor Sanders stated he was going to report the abuse. Respondent further acknowledged that prior to 8:55 p.m., she had never made a phone call to report the abuse to 911, DCF, or her principal. However, given that Respondent had just recently seen a video on her personal computer of her fiancé engaged in sexual activity with a minor female student in their home, it was understandable that Respondent needed time to process the situation. A less than four-hour delay from when Respondent first saw the video to Pastor Sanders’ call to 911 was immediate, and not an unreasonable delay given the unique facts of this case. Sometime before 10:00 p.m., Respondent returned to her residence. She saw Madison’s vehicle and assumed he was inside the home. According to Respondent, she knew the police were on their way. Respondent nevertheless entered the home, but she did not approach Madison in any manner. At approximately 10:00 p.m., two St. Lucie County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the home and rang the doorbell at the front door. Madison answered the door, and was told by one of the deputies that they were there to talk to Respondent. The officer asked Respondent to step outside to speak with them and Madison was directed to step back. Madison then went back inside the home and closed the door behind him. One of the deputies remained at the front porch area while Respondent and the other deputy began to discuss what Respondent had seen on the video. At this point, one of the deputies requested to see the video so Respondent and the deputies proceeded to attempt to go back inside the front door. However, they discovered that Madison had locked the door behind him when he re-entered the home. By this point, no law enforcement officer had explored the perimeter of the home to determine whether there were any other entrances or exists from the home. Nor was Respondent asked by either deputy if there were any other entrances or exits from the home. Respondent began ringing the doorbell and knocking on the front door. In the midst of Respondent ringing the doorbell, knocking on the door, and receiving no response from Madison, the deputies asked Respondent, for the first time, if there were any guns in the home and any other entrances and exits. Respondent advised the deputies that there was a back door. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison had snuck out the back door of the home to elude law enforcement. Respondent gave the deputies permission to enter and search the home. They entered through the open back door. Once the house was cleared by the officers, Respondent and the officers went inside the home. Respondent was cooperative during the search of the home and she consented to allowing the officers to look at the computer. Respondent attempted to show one of the deputies what she saw on the computer, but nothing would come up. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison took the evidence with him when he fled the home. When officers went into the front office and wanted to collect some items belonging to Madison, Respondent told the officers that she would prefer if they got a search warrant. The officers obtained a search warrant and stayed all night searching the home until approximately 5:00 a.m. Respondent did not sleep or eat while the officers were at the home and she was visibly “shaken-up” and crying at times during the evening and early morning hours of October 19. Detective Wentz was at the home and spoke with Respondent throughout the night and early morning of October 19. At some point, Detective Wentz “flat out asked” Respondent if she knew where Madison was located. Respondent responded, indicating she did not know where he fled to. Detective Wentz made it clear to Respondent on multiple occasions during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 that if she knew Madison’s whereabouts, she should let him know. Before he left the home on the morning of October 19, Detective Wentz reiterated to Respondent that she needed to contact law enforcement immediately if she had any information about Madison’s whereabouts. Respondent clearly understood this directive. At no time during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 did Respondent ever volunteer information as to where she thought Madison might be. On the other hand, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not know of Madison’s whereabouts at any time during the evening of October 18 and early hours of October 19 after he fled the home. However, by 11:45 a.m., on October 19, Respondent discovered that Madison might be staying at the local Holiday Inn Express, based on information she received from Madison’s father. Respondent called the front desk of the hotel at 11:47 a.m. and 12:01 p.m., in an effort to confirm that Madison was indeed at the Holiday Inn. Respondent and Madison spoke at 12:09 p.m., at which time Respondent knew Madison was still at the hotel, about to check-out of the hotel. At no time between 11:47 a.m. and 1:39 p.m., did Respondent make any calls to law enforcement to let them know that Madison might be at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz was at Respondent’s home before 1:39 p.m. However, Respondent failed to inform Master Deputy Horowitz that Madison was at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz specifically asked Respondent if she knew where Madison was. Respondent responded, stating that she “did not know where his whereabouts were at the time.” Respondent spoke with Master Deputy Horowitz by telephone on two or three occasions later that afternoon. Respondent’s testimony that she told Master Deputy during one of these telephone conversations that Madison had been at the Holiday Inn is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. Later that afternoon, Respondent was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for an interview. During the interview, Respondent admitted she failed to inform law enforcement that Respondent had been staying at the Holiday Inn: DETECTIVE NORMAN: I know you’ve talked to several detectives throughout yesterday evening, last night, this morning, this afternoon. Probably seen more faces that you want to see. Here’s--here’s what we’re trying to figure out, where your fiancé is. Do you know where he is? MISS THOMAS: And I understand that. And like I told the officers that came to the home, it was information that was left out. And it truly was not intentional. I know the way it looked, intentionally, it made me look bad, but I honestly do not know where he is. At the time when I did speak to him, he told me that’s where he was, that he was leaving that location so I haven’t a clue. He hasn’t contacted me since the last time I spoke with him today. * * * And I mean, I’m disappointed because I made a mistake. I did. I omitted something that I didn’t realize at the time and I don’t know if it was, you know, just, you know, just did it just because I guess deep down I was maybe trying--you know, I don’t know why I didn’t say, “Oh yea, by the way this.” I don’t know why. That was so stupid. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, pp. 5-7. Following the interview, Respondent was placed under arrest and charged with one felony count of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, Florida Statutes, and one felony count of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of section 777.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes. After Respondent was arrested, she was placed on temporary duty assignment at home with pay. On Monday, October 22, Respondent self-reported her arrest and the abuse of K.M. by Madison to her principal and the District. Subsequently, the State Attorney charged Respondent in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for the felony charges of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, and for the felony charge of being an accessory after the fact in violation of section 777.03(1)(c). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not call Madison while he was at the Holiday Inn Express to warn him so that he could elude arrest. Nevertheless, Respondent knew Madison was at the Holiday Inn at least by 12:09 p.m. on October 19, when she spoke to Madison on the telephone. Respondent failed to inform law enforcement that he was at the Holiday Inn, or that he had been at the Holiday Inn, until her interview at the Sheriff’s office later that afternoon just prior to her arrest. After a 23-hour manhunt, law enforcement officers found and arrested Madison at the Holiday Inn Express around 7:00 p.m. Respondent’s delay in informing law enforcement of Madison’s whereabouts or that he had been at the Holiday Inn Express delayed his arrest by at most, approximately seven hours. Notably, the video was discovered by Respondent, reported by Respondent to law enforcement, and Madison was arrested, within the span of approximately 25 or 26 hours. Ultimately, it was Respondent who identified the victims of Madison’s crimes. It was Respondent’s discovery of the video, her immediate reporting of the abuse, and her later identification of the victims, which led to Madison’s arrest and his conviction on all charges. The State Attorney charged Madison in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit with 40 counts of criminal activity: 34 felony charges of sexual activity with a minor; five felony charges of sexual battery on a child in custodial relationship; and one felony charge of using a child in a sexual performance. On April 1, 2016, Madison was adjudicated guilty on five counts of sexual activity with a minor. Madison was sentenced to 15 years, consecutive, for each count. On August 7, 2013, Respondent pled no contest to both charges. On the plea form, Respondent checked section 25, which states: “I specifically believe the plea is in my best interest even though I am innocent of the charge, charges, or violations, or may have defenses to them.” After Madison was adjudicated guilty, all criminal charges against Respondent were Nolle Prossed. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 5.056(2)(d) or (e). The evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in behavior that disrupted a student’s learning environment or reduced her ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health. Indeed, Respondent protected students from any further abuse by Madison. Respondent is responsible for Madison’s abuse of K.M. being brought to the attention of law enforcement immediately after she observed the video on her personal computer. Within about four hours after observing her fiancé engaging in sexual activity with a minor on her personal computer and processing the situation and speaking with her pastor, the matter was reported to 911, and law enforcement arrived at Respondent’s home. Madison was at the home when the deputies arrived. Notably, the deputies who arrived at Respondent’s home did not ask to speak with Madison first. Instead, they asked to speak with Respondent, and Respondent was asked to step outside the home. Madison, the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse, was ordered by one of the deputies to go back inside the home. Knowing full well that the suspect, Madison, went back inside the home through the front door, neither deputy undertook any efforts to determine whether Madison might have an escape route through another door. A perimeter was not established until after law enforcement officers discovered that Madison had fled the home. Respondent cooperated with law enforcement while they were at her home. She cooperated fully in the prosecution of Madison and she was instrumental in securing Madison’s criminal conviction for the abuse. Given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s failure to inform law enforcement during the afternoon of October 19 of Madison’s whereabouts at the Holiday Inn, which delayed the arrest of Madison by seven hours, at most, does not rise to the level of conduct sufficient to support a finding of guilt in violation of rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated rule 6B-1.006(3)(n). Respondent reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when Pastor Sanders called 911. She also reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when deputies arrived at her home. Respondent also self-reported the incident to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1). Insufficient credible and persuasive evidence was adduced at hearing to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and that the conduct was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace or bring disrespect to Respondent or the teaching profession and impair Respondent’s service in the community. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 5.37(8)(a). Respondent “directly” reported her knowledge of Madison’s abuse of K.M. as required by the policy when Pastor Sanders called 911 within four hours of Respondent’s view of the video. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b). As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(viii), Respondent did not engage in immoral conduct, nor was it shown that Respondent’s conduct was “indecent.” As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx), the School Board failed to prove that Respondent engaged in off-duty conduct that does not promote the good will and favorable attitude of the public toward the School District, its programs, and policies. In reaching this conclusion, it is notable that the School Board did not call any members of the public or any administrators, teachers, or other personnel as witnesses to support this claim. Moreover, the School Board does not argue in its proposed recommended order that it proved that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). Paragraphs 71 through 73 refer to another specific subdivision within Policy 6.301(3)(b), 6.301(3)(b)(viii). However, there is no specific argument that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.94(2)(a). As detailed above, Respondent reported the abuse when Pastor Sanders called 911. Respondent also reported the incident to the deputies when they arrived at her home shortly after Pastor Sanders called 911, and when she self-reported the abuse to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order rescinding Respondent’s suspension without pay and termination, and reinstate her with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 May, 2017.
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 October, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Miami- Dade County School Board should be suspended or terminated for the reasons specified in the letter of notification of suspension and dismissal dated September 6, 2012, and the Notice of Specific Charges filed on January 10, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Ms. Isabel Diaz-Almarez was employed as a full-time dance teacher at South Miami Senior High School (South Miami), within the School District of Miami-Dade County. Ms. Diaz- Almarez also served as coach of the Cobra Charmers Dance Team and sponsor of the Booster Club for the Cobra Charmers. Ms. Diaz-Almarez was employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) pursuant to a professional services contract beginning in July 2009. In July 2012, as a result of parental concerns voiced to the administration, an investigation was initiated and conducted by the MDCPS Civilian Investigative Unit. MDCPS sent Ms. Diaz-Almarez a letter of notification of suspension without pay and initiation of dismissal proceedings dated September 6, 2012, advising her of the alleged grounds for termination and of her right to an administrative hearing. Ms. Diaz-Almarez is substantially affected by action of the School Board to suspend or terminate her employment. Ms. Diaz-Almarez was a dance teacher, the coach of the dance team, and the sponsor of the Booster Club. Testimony of a parent and several students indicated that Ms. Diaz-Almarez was a good teacher and was effective in performing her roles. She was popular with students, some of whom referred to her as “Mrs. D.” Ms. Diaz-Almarez had an intern assigned to her class through MDCPS. The intern’s name was Ivonna Ledon, and she passed the required background clearance and was fingerprinted. After the internship ended, Ms. Ledon would occasionally teach one of Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classes during the day, and continued to come in after school to work with the students on the dance team. She was paid by Ms. Diaz-Almarez with checks from Booster Club funds. Ms. Ledon described her position as the assistant coach of the Cobra Charmers dance team. Classes at South Miami are set up in three periods each day, with each period lasting two hours: periods one, three, and five on one day; periods two, four, and six the next day; in alternating fashion. The Dance Team class met in periods five and six, a two-hour block at the end of each day. One of these periods was officially called “ballet.” Ms. Diaz-Almarez also hired Ms. Priscilla Marrero to come to her fifth and sixth period classes, usually once or twice a week, to teach the Cobra Charmers Dance Team. Ms. Diaz- Almarez testified that she believed Ms. Marrero had been fingerprinted through the “Arts for Learning” program before she came to South Miami because Ms. Marrero told her so. Ms. Diaz- Almarez did not send an e-mail to the district to verify if Ms. Marrero had been cleared to work with students. Ms. Diaz- Almarez would sometimes watch Ms. Marrero teach her class, sometimes participate in the class, and sometimes do other work related to planning and preparation for upcoming events and performances. The instructors hired by Ms. Diaz-Almarez were not hired by the administration of South Miami or MDCPS. Teachers are permitted to have volunteers. A one-time volunteer must go through the main office at South Miami in order to sign in. Longer-term volunteers must complete background forms with MDCPS and be cleared with a background check. Ms. Ledon and Ms. Marrero were paid from Booster Club funds and were not volunteers. South Miami students Dayron Davilla, Felipe Gonzalez, Ernie Diaz, and Marcelo Gonzalez were not enrolled in dance classes during the 2011-2012 school year, and did not have Ms. Diaz-Almarez as a teacher. These students nevertheless frequented Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom. Felipe testified that he would go to Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom three or four times a week. He testified that he would get a pass to do things like help Ms. Diaz-Almarez “move a couch or something” and that he never went to Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom without a pass. Felipe was seen sleeping on the couch in Ms. Diaz- Almarez’s classroom on more than one occasion. Felipe testified he did fall asleep on the couch “once or twice” but that it was during lunch or after school. He testified that on one occasion he had ordered food from a nearby restaurant that was delivered to him at the school, so he was not hungry when lunch period came and he fell asleep on the couch. The principal at South Miami during the 2011-2012 school year was Mr. Gilberto Bonce. On one or two occasions, Mr. Bonce discovered the boys in Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom when they were not supposed to be there, and sent them back to their classroom. Ms. Diaz-Almarez set up a collection box in her room in which the students would deposit payments to the Booster Club. The child of the Booster Club treasurer would collect payments from the box and give them to her mother, and the student would return with Booster Club checks made out to whoever was to get the money. Periodically during the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Diaz-Almarez would receive checks from the treasurer of the Booster Club with which she would then pay the choreographers (she also sometimes paid them in cash). This was all Booster money, and Ms. Diaz-Almarez did not go through the school’s internal fund accounting processes. Ms. Diaz-Almarez also had an ATM card from the Booster Club’s bank account, which had been given to her by the treasurer to purchase items that the Booster Club did not have time to handle, such as first aid supplies, fundraising supplies, ribbon for costumes, or awards and trophies. Again, these were Booster funds and Ms. Diaz-Almarez did not go through the school’s internal funds for these purchases. Ms. Diaz-Almarez was aware of the guidelines for managing a Booster Club and knew that, as faculty advisor, she was not permitted to handle Booster Club funds. Only students and parents are permitted to handle Booster Club funds under these guidelines. During the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Diaz-Almarez maintained accounts on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. On Facebook, Ms. Diaz-Almarez was “friends” only with students who were seniors or 18 years of age. On Instagram, Ms. Diaz-Almarez was at first unaware that she could set up a private account in which she would be able to approve each person wanting to “follow” her. Instead, she initially had a public account, which allowed anyone to read the content and view the pictures on her account. Later, she established a private account. She also “followed” some seniors at South Miami on her Instagram account, including some students who were not students in her classes. On Twitter, she also was unaware that there was a private setting. She would try to block non-senior students who were “following” her on Twitter when she caught them, but she allowed seniors to follow her. She communicated with her students on these social media sites. Some of these communications were not dance-related. Shortly before the winter break of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Diaz-Almarez posted a picture of Felipe Gonzalez, Dayron Davilla, Kassandra Llanes, Marcelo Gonzalez, Sara Sigel, and Kayan Fernandez (all students at South Miami) on her Facebook page. The picture was taken in Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s office. Several of the students can be seen smiling and holding up miniature bottles of alcohol and shot glasses. Ms. Diaz- Almarez testified she could not remember how she got the picture. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified she did not realize the picture showed the students with alcohol. The evidence showed that at one point, she said she thought the bottles contained perfume, and she also testified that she just saw a picture of a group and posted it. Her testimony was not credible. Ms. Diaz- Almarez knew that the picture showed students with alcohol. Although the School Board alleged that Ms. Diaz- Almeraz gave the small bottles of alcohol and the shot glasses to the students, this was not proven. Ms. Diaz-Almarez denied it. A student by the name of Alex Martinez testified that he and another student, Kassandra Llanes, gave the boys in the picture the small bottles of alcohol and that he took the picture. Another student also testified that she saw Alex taking the photograph. The classroom used by Ms. Diaz-Almarez included three smaller rooms connected to the open studio: a dressing room, a storage room where costumes and props were kept, and the office. The dressing room and the storage room did not have doors that could be locked from the inside. A “Do Not Disturb” sign was kept so that when privacy was needed in these rooms, Ms. Diaz- Almarez could put up the sign on the outside of the doors. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified that on one occasion after school she put up the “Do Not Disturb” sign on the storage room door and told her students that she was going to be getting waxed, but she testified that she had only said that as a joke, and that she actually was going into the storage room to show a visitor costumes. At the end of the 2011-2012 school year, students began planning for the prom. About 15 students, many of whom were associated with the Cobra Charmers, collected money to rent a hotel penthouse suite for the weekend after the prom. The suite rented for more than $1,000. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified that the hotel in Miami would only accept “Paypal” and not credit cards. She testified that at the last minute the students were in danger of losing their reservation because neither they nor any of their parents had a Paypal account and they could not wait the three days it required to open one, so she put the suite on her Paypal account. The Friday afternoon of the prom, Ms. Diaz-Almarez took a half-day of sick leave and went with some students to get the suite ready. Ms. Diaz-Almarez drove with Dayron Davilla, while Javier Trujillo drove another vehicle. They unloaded food from the two cars and took it upstairs to the suite, where Ms. Diaz-Almarez helped put it away in the kitchen. Ms. Diaz- Almarez testified that there was no alcohol in her car and that she saw no alcohol in the suite. Dayron asked Ms. Diaz-Almarez to help him create a little gift display with rose petals and mints for his girlfriend, and she did. Ms. Diaz-Almarez also left a number of items in the suite that she had bought as gifts for the students. She testified that “[i]t was for them to possibly use. It was a little bit of a joke, and I bought them things that I knew that they probably would forget to take on purpose.” She testified she gave them a first aid kit, sunscreen, after-sun lotion, mouthwash, mints, toothpaste, freeze pops, Gatorade, and Jolly Ranchers. She denied arranging these items in a display on a tray and denied that she also gave them Jell-O, lemons, two bottles of alcohol, or condoms. Javier’s screen name on Instagram was “javixxt.” A picture of a tray containing most of the above-mentioned items, including the Jell-O, lemons, two bottles of alcohol, and condoms, was posted to his account, along with the notation, “Thank you Mrs. D!!!(:” Felipe testified that Javier read out a card to the students in the suite from Mrs. Diaz-Almarez that said, in substance, “I’m proud of you. Have a good weekend. Be safe.” Felipe said he never saw where the card came from and did not know if it was sitting on the tray. As Janette Vazquez and Xaylin Garza -- two of the students who stayed in the after-prom hotel suite -- testified, each of the roughly 15 students staying there brought their own bottle of alcohol. These were full size bottles, that is, liters, quarts, or “fifths.” The alcohol was put in the kitchen. The suite was fairly large and a person had to walk by the kitchen to get to the bedrooms. Ms. Diaz-Almarez returned to the hotel room the following day around lunchtime with her husband. Her husband made steaks in the oven because there was no grill. As Felipe testified, Ms. Diaz-Almarez was also in the kitchen. After lunch, Ms. Diaz-Almarez talked with the girls in one of the bedrooms, then went down to the pool and the sauna with them. They then returned to the suite, watched television, and had dinner. After this, Ms. Diaz-Almarez and her husband left. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified that she never saw any of the students drinking alcohol. She testified she never saw any alcohol in the suite. Several students testified that they never saw Ms. Diaz-Almarez drinking alcohol or taking “Jell-O shots.” Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s testimony that she did not see any alcohol in the suite is not credible, and is rejected. Given the testimony of numerous witnesses as to the amount of alcohol in the suite, and the credited testimony that the bottles were in the kitchen and that Ms. Diaz-Almarez spent time in the kitchen, a bedroom, and the living room, it is determined that she saw the alcohol. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s interactions with her students reflect a deep immaturity and craving for their approval. She dealt with them as if she wanted to be popular with them and be their peer, rather than assume an appropriate role displaying strong leadership and character for their benefit. Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed in her obligation to protect students from conditions harmful to their mental and physical health. Assisting students to rent a hotel suite and fraternizing with students in after-prom activities where there was alcohol were completely incompatible with maintaining a position of authority with respect to students, and were so serious as to impair Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s effectiveness as a teacher in MDCPS. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez intentionally exposed any student to embarrassment or disparagement. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez intentionally violated or denied a student’s legal rights. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez harassed or discriminated against any student, or failed to protect any student from harassment or discrimination. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s conduct in posting a picture showing students in her office with alcohol on her Facebook page, as well as in assisting students to rent a hotel suite and fraternizing with them in after-prom activities where there was alcohol was conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s conduct in posting the Facebook picture and her conduct surrounding the after-prom weekend was not sufficiently notorious to bring public disgrace or disrespect to herself or to the education profession. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s conduct in posting the Facebook picture and her conduct surrounding the after-prom weekend impaired her service in the community. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by rules of the State Department of Education. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to maintain honesty in all her professional dealings. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to maintain, prepare, or submit promptly any report that was required by State law, State Department of Education rule, Board rule, or administrative directive. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez used abusive or profane language or displayed unseemly conduct in the workplace. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez made malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez submitted fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to obey local, State, and national laws, codes and regulations. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez unreasonably denied any student access to diverse points of view. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez sent any students on non-school-related errands. Ms. Diaz-Almarez inappropriately associated with students in a manner which gave the appearance of impropriety, including participation in situations that were sexually suggestive and which involved alcohol. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s inappropriate association with students in a manner which gave the appearance of impropriety, including participation in situations that were sexually suggestive and which involved alcohol, impaired Ms. Diaz- Almarez’s effectiveness in the school system. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez engaged in unacceptable relationships or communications with students in the nature of dating; any form of sexual touching or behavior; making sexual, indecent, or illegal proposals, gestures or comments; or exploiting her teacher-student relationship. Ms. Diaz-Almarez transported a student in a private vehicle without the approval of the principal. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s transportation of a student in a private automobile did not impair Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s effectiveness in the school system. The actions of Ms. Diaz-Almarez constitute misconduct in office and just cause for suspension or termination of her employment as a dance teacher at South Miami.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order finding Ms. Isabel Diaz-Almarez guilty of misconduct in office, suspend her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and place her on probation for a period of two years. Because Ms. Diaz-Almarez has already been suspended for more than 180 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated, with the calculation of back pay not to include pay for the 180-day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board in July 2006 and assigned to teach at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"). At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The 2010-2011 School Year During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Horace Mann. Dr. Carmen Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011, involving Respondent "yelling," "throwing things around" in her classroom, and making an inappropriate comment to another employee. The reprimand directed Respondent to refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and making inappropriate comments to or about staff members that may be interpreted as offensive or threatening. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent regarding the April 27, 2011, incident, at which time Respondent was directed to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives will be deemed as insubordination which may result in disciplinary action. The 2011-2012 School Year On April 13, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey and Paul J. Greenfield, administrative director for North Regional Center, held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in the cafeteria involving Respondent yelling at and pulling a student by the bottom of her shirt, slinging the student around, and causing the student to fall into a metal counter. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. As a result of the alleged incident, Respondent was suspended without pay for 17 days and informed that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. The 2012-2013 School Year On November 16, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in Respondent's sixth-period class involving a verbal altercation between Respondent and a student during which Respondent used inappropriate language when addressing the student and the entire class. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed of the issuance of a letter of reprimand and that failure to comply with the directives will result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on November 28, 2012, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's sixth-period class. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On March 21, 2013, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013, in which Respondent yelled at the entire class and forcefully moved desks, which caused another desk to hit a student causing the student to lose her balance and injure her arm. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed that failure to comply with the directives will constitute gross insubordination and result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on April 9, 2013, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from losing her temper in class, getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On June 19, 2013, at its scheduled meeting, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing, and, on June 26, 2013, the School Board referred the matter to DOAH. The matter was styled Miami- Dade County School Board v. Shavonne Anderson, DOAH Case No. 13-2414TTS, and assigned to Administrative Law Judge Todd P. Resavage. 2013-2014 School Year On January 14, 2014, following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Resavage issued a Recommended Order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination. Judge Resavage recommended that the School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, suspending her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and placing her on probation for a period of two years. On February 12, 2014, the School Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Resavage's Recommended Order, imposing the suspension without pay for a period of 180 days. Respondent received credit for time served and was reinstated for the 2014-2015 school year. 2018-2019 School Year Respondent was re-assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School for the 2018-2019 school year, where she taught physical science. The proposed discipline is based on conduct occurring on January 31, 2019, during Respondent's fourth-period inclusion physical science class, co-taught by Respondent and another teacher, Joanna Semeniuk. On January 31, 2019, D.A. was a ninth-grade male special education student in the class. During class, D.A. questioned Respondent about the quality of his written work. Displeased with Respondent's answer, a verbal confrontation ensued between D.A. and Respondent. The argument escalated after D.A. stood up, threw his paper on the floor of the classroom, used profane language toward Respondent, and attempted to leave the room. In response to D.A.'s conduct, Respondent became irate, grabbed the paper off the floor, used profane language toward D.A., grabbed D.A. by his shirt, and shoved the piece of paper down his shirt. The incident was witnessed by Ms. Semeniuk and other students in the classroom. Respondent's conduct on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate, disparaging, reflected poorly upon herself and the School Board, and reduced Respondent's ability to effectively perform duties. Respondent could certainly have projected authority and addressed the student's behavior without escalating the situation and resorting to the profane and disparaging verbal attack and initiating inappropriate physical contact with D.A. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Through the profane and disparaging verbal tirade and inappropriate physical contact upon the student on January 31, 2019, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety, intentionally exposing the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and intentionally violating the student's rights. Respondent also violated School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.3., 7., and 8., and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics, Conduct Regarding Students, sections A., E., and F., which mirror rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4) by intentionally refusing to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. By failing to comply with the specific directives detailed above to refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace; refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board, Respondent intentionally refused a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that her language and use of profanity toward her student in the classroom on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate. Specifically, Respondent acknowledged that during the incident she called D.A. a "faggot" and directed the word "shit" toward him. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., or School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.9. and 22.
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 upholding the suspension and terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Shavonne L. Anderson 2868 Northwest 197th Terrace Miami Gardens, Florida 33056 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert P. Sulcer, as principal of Riverland Elementary School, is guilty of "incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty" as charged in a 28-count "Amended Petition for Dismissal from Broward County School System," filed September 6, 1984, and should be dismissed from employment with the Petitioner, Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact RESPONDENT: BACKGROUND AND PAST PERFORMANCE In 1955, Respondent received a Master's Degree in Education, Supervision, and Administration from Southern Illinois University. He moved to Broward County in 1957 and was first employed by the School Board as a teacher at McNab Elementary School. He has been employed as a principal for 25 years. In 1960, he became the principal of McNab Elementary and continued as a principal in various elementary schools until 1971 or 1972, when he became a principal at Pompano Beach Middle School for seven years. He was assigned the principalship at Lake Forest Elementary School for 5 years, then became principal of Riverland Elementary School in 1982. When he was suspended without pay on August 2, 1984, based on the charges which are the subject of this proceeding, he had a continuing contract (as principal) with the School Board. His supervisors evaluated (in writing) his performance as a principal during each of the 25 years he was a principal, including the 1982-83 and 1983- 84 school years. All evaluations were positive and described his performance as satisfactory. There were no negative comments. II COUNTS 1 AND 2: CONSISTENT DISCIPLINE PLAN Count 1 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 2 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and/or maintain and/or formally present consistent rules and/or regulations regarding student discipline and/or student behavior for the staff and student body at Riverland Elementary School for the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 1 and 2 center on the "development of a consistent disciplinary plan" at Riverland Elementary School, including rules and regulations for the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. To sustain these charges the School Board must demonstrate that there was no consistent disciplinary plan including rules and regulations in effect at Riverland Elementary School for the years 1982-1983 and 1983-84 and that such omission constituted incompetency, misconduct in office or willful neglect of duty. The evidence not only fails to substantiate these two charges but affirmatively establishes that a consistent formal disciplinary plan and procedure was in effect at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years. A. 1982-83 During the 1982-83 school year, the Student Conduct and Discipline Code ("Discipline Code") for Broward County was in effect and fully utilized. Riverland Elementary School received its accreditation at the conclusion of that year and there was no reference to an inconsistent or non-existent disciplinary plan. There were no reports of a non-existent or inappropriate disciplinary system at Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 made to School Board administrators at any time prior to the lodging of initial charges in March 1984. (R-2; TR-IV, p.467; TR-V, p.712; TR-XI, pp.42,108) The Discipline Code delineated the teachers' responsibilities for student discipline as well as the consequences for student misconduct. During school year 1982-83, Respondent utilized the disciplinary referral system and handled student discipline problems in a manner consistent with the Discipline Code. (Conversely, there is no evidence demonstrating that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in any instance, whatsoever during the year 1982-83.) He made sure (that parents, teachers, and students were aware of the Discipline Code. When he became principal of Riverland he discussed discipline with the students during an orientation assembly. He met with the grade level chairpersons on a daily basis and discussed discipline with them. They, in turn, were instructed to direct the teachers under their jurisdiction to review the contents of the Discipline Code with their students and ensure that students took the Code pamphlets home to be signed by their parents. In connection with the SACS review process, a student assembly was held to discuss discipline. Because of the type of children in the school and the age of the majority of the students, however, school-wide assemblies to discuss discipline proved to be less effective than small group discussions. Respondent's preferred use of small group settings and his utilization of the Discipline Code was deemed acceptable by his immediate supervisor. Other teachers followed a similar practice without objection. (TR-III, p.372; TR-IX, p.40, TR-X, p.83, TR-XIII, p.77, TR-XV, pp.38 169,2,192-193; TR-XVI, pp.8-9,16,48-49) B. 1983-84 During school year 1983-84, the Discipline Code remained in effect. Respondent continued to utilize it as the foundation for the disciplinary process in place at Riverland Elementary School. Indeed, use of the Discipline Code, as adopted by the School Board of Broward County, was mandated. Although several teachers testified that there should be a school-wide code which overlaps or supercedes the official county-wide Discipline Code, there is no showing that a school-wide code, other than the Discipline Code, was required or even customarily used in the school system (TR-I, pp.89,90, TR-II, p.201; TR- IV, p.467, TR-V, p.712; TR-IX, p.38; TR-XI, p.108; TR-XV, p.16) Several teachers critical of Respondent's performance testified that he should have adopted a code listing infractions which would automatically lead to specific consequences. To comply with this request, Respondent would have had to enact a code inconsistent with the Discipline Code mandated by the School Board. Page 6 of the Code sets forth the criteria to be used by a principal or his designee in meting out discipline. The Code attempts to match specific conse- quences with specific behavior. The numbers in brackets which follow each rule refer to consequences which may be used if misbehavior occurs. With the exception of Attendance, consequences are listed on page 24. Under certain circumstances, specification is mandatory and is so identified by an asterisk (*). When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teachers it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. School personnel are encouraged to employ realistic and appropriate methods of disci- pline not necessarily outlined in this Code. For example, cleaning desk tops is an appro- priate consequence for writing on them. When determining the consequences, the fol- lowing circumstances should be taken into consideration: age and/or grade level of student; frequency of misconduct; seriousness of particular misconduct; attitude of student; student records; any other relevant factors including but not limited to, handicapped students who are governed by provi- sions outlined in School Board Policy 5006.1. (e.s.) Under this disciplinary scheme, a principal administers discipline not only to punish students but to encourage behavior modification. To accomplish the latter a principal is given alternatives and combinations of alternatives for use based on the unique circumstances of each situation. Factors to be taken into account include the number of prior referrals, the seriousness of the situation, the child's previous disciplinary record, the age of the child, the intellectual level of the child, the emotional level of the child, and any learning disabilities that might be associated with the child. Respondent followed the Discipline Code and administered discipline based upon the referrals he received from teachers. There was no showing that he failed to follow the student Discipline Code. If the charge is that the Discipline Code, itself, lacks "consistent rules and regulations," or fails to conform to "consistent rules and regulations" such charge is more appropriately directed at the School Boards which adopted the Coded than Respondent who merely implemented it. (TR-XV, pp.38-39, 54; TR-XVI, p.31) At the outset of the 1983-84 school year, Respondent again directed his grade level chairpersons to disseminate the Code to teachers and instruct them to teach the Code to their students. The teachers were instructed to use the Discipline Code in conjunction with I.T.V. programs during the first week or two of school. The teachers carried out these instructions. Students were taught the Code, and their understanding of the Code was reinforced throughout the year. (R,4, TR-II, pp.184, 189,201; TR-V, pp.638,640; TR-X, p.126; TR-XVI, pp.48-49,5-6) In addition to the grade level chairpersons' meetings, Respondent disseminated various bulletins dealing with discipline, specifically Bulletin 83-9, which set forth the steps the teachers were to utilize in the disciplinary process. He issued Bulletin 83-9 because some teachers were not following the Discipline Code and meting out the appropriate discipline in the classrooms (per the Code) before sending students to his office. This bulletin was intended to reinforce the Code's recognition that teachers are primarily responsible for discipline in the classroom. The Code recognizes that classroom management is an integral part, if not the most important component, in the disciplinary process: When discipline problems occur in the pres- ence of a teacher, it is the responsibility of the teacher to handle the situation until all strategies available to the teacher according to the School Board Policy have been exhausted. (R-4; TR-III, P.394; TR-V, p.708)(R-2, p.6, TR-XV, p.31) COUNTS 3 AND 4: INCONSISTENT METING OUT OF DISCIPLINE Count 3 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 4 You are hereby charged with failing to admin- ister discipline consistently and/or effec- tively for students referred to you by staff members during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges allege inconsistency in the meting out of discipline by Respondent as opposed to the failure to establish or maintain consistent disciplinary rules alleged in Counts 1 and 2. Although inconsistent discipline was alleged, none has been shown. The only evidence offered to support these charges was innuendo and vague, elusive accusations or perceptions by several teachers, most of which were based on hearsay consisting of generalizations uttered by others. The record is devoid of specific, concrete examples of "inconsistent" disciplinary action by Respondent. The complete lack of specific evidence is not due to want of records. Detailed records of every disciplinary action taken by Respondent during 1983-84 were available for analysis. (743 discipline referral slips covering school year 1983-84 were retained by Respondent and available for review.) There is no evidence, however, that anyone critical of Respondent's meting out of discipline ever took the time to, or went to the trouble of, reviewing them. Indeed, no one on behalf of the School Board even asked to see them.) It was Respondent who offered all referral slips (identifying details of each infraction and Respondent's action) into evidence. Some teachers testified that there were too many steps in the referral process although how this complaint relates to inconsistency was not shown. Others testified that they had to go through every single disciplinary step in order to refer a child to Respondent for discipline. The opposite was proven to be true. If a situation was serious enough, the disciplinary steps prescribed by Respondent (which were essentially the same steps as those prescribed by the Discipline Code) could be short, circuited and an immediate referral made. When serious disciplinary problems occurred, teachers brought students directly to Respondent's office and he handled the situation. (TR-II, p.219; TR-III, p.425; TR-IV, p.475; TR-X, p.15; TR-XI, P.24) Respondent made an effort to insure that the disciplinary process at Riverland was rational, and known to and followed by all. In addition to Bulletin 83-9 (delineating the steps in the process), Respondent disseminated numerous other bulletins and materials dealing with assertive discipline as part of the Faculty Handbook. He met with the faculty and discussed the disciplinary process. He insisted they use the detailed referral process which he established. The referral slips themselves show that he used all of the allowable disciplinary consequences--individually or in combination--including, but not limited to, student conferences, verbal reprimands written punishments, parental contacts, internal suspensions, corporal punishments, and external suspensions based upon the unique circumstances of each case. (TR-III, P.427; TR-XVI, pp.15,31; R-1; R-2) A. 1982-83 Count 3 alleges that Respondent failed to administer discipline in a consistent manner for the school year 1982-83. There was no meaningful evidence of any inconsistent discipline administered in 1982-83. There was no testimony or documentation of one specific incident which Respondent could cross-examine or refute. 2/ Indeed the record supports an inference that discipline was meted out consistently during 1982-83. There was a detailed Discipline Code in effect, known to all, and he insisted that it be followed. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, and the grant of accreditation do not reflect that discipline was being inconsistently administered. Ms. Swilley, the Department of Education's competence reviewer, doesn't find inconsistent discipline; she refers to materials appended to her report, and then states the referrals reflect the teacher "concerns." The appended material only contains referrals from 1983-84 gathered together by Ms. Elmore, one of Respondent's harshest critics. The official Broward County School Board Progress Reports for Riverland Elementary School during 1982-83 and 1983-84, reflect teachers', students', and parents', attitudes, all of which are extremely high. (Teachers- -86 percent, parent--92 percent, and students--88 percent) There is no evidence that this alleged deficiency was ever complained of or mentioned in any memoranda, read-react-and-return memo, grade level chairperson minutes, faculty minutes, correspondence to Respondent's supervisor or Board administrators, notes or minutes of the P.T.A., parents advisory group, Respondent's performance evaluation, or any other document. (R-4; Appendix 14; P-4; P-3; R-19) B 1983-84 Similarly, no factual basis has been shown for the charge that Respondent inconsistently administered discipline during the 1983-84 school year. This charge, too, is unsubstantiated. No systematic analysis of the 1983-84 disciplinary records of particular students was done to demonstrate that students were disciplined differently when the facts indicate they should have been disciplined the same. Although some witnesses generally testified that Respondent disciplined students inconsistently during 1983-84, their conclusions were not substantiated. Although one teacher, Ms. Ordway, claimed inconsistency in the meting out of discipline, she could not give one specific example. Similar negative conclusions by Ms. Ross, another teacher, were based on "what the [other] teachers would say." The testimony of Ms. Kasmarik, another teacher, supports the opposite conclusion: Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, let me ask you do you know what--can you give me specific instances that Mr. Sulcer treated two children with disparate consequences for the same act? Can you give me an example? A. That I personally saw it or that I heard about it? Q. No. You are the witness. What you saw, personally were involved in. A. With the referrals that he wrote up, Mr. Sulcer--The only referrals I wrote up were for fighting. That's the only referrals I wrote up, and when I got the response from that, Mr. Sulcer had used corporal punishment on both children. Q. So they were consistent as it goes to your personal observations? A. As my personal observations, it was consistent, yes. (e.s.) (TR-VI, p.826, TR-X, p.147) Likewise, Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, testified: A. I would say that the punishment was consistent. Now, the problem is I didn't feel it was severe enough because it didn't prevent them from repeating the same incidents. (TR-XI, p.23) Mr. Dandy, Respondent's supervisor throughout, and the person who initially pressed him to correct alleged deficiencies, was unable to recall any specific instance of inconsistent discipline being meted out; rather, his criticism of Respondent only reflected the "teachers' perceptions." The unsubstantiated "perceptions" of other teachers based on nothing more than generalized complaint or hearsay are patently insufficient to sustain the charge. (TR-XIII, pp.82- 83,92,97) Respondent followed a set procedure in disciplining students. Before referral the child would describe, in writing, the misbehavior so that the child would understand the significance and inappropriateness of the conduct. On referral to the principal the child would bring with him or her the written description of the incident. Respondent would discuss the situation with the child review any prior disciplinary problems, and then determine the appropriate consequence based on the Discipline Code. He often gave verbal reprimands arranged for parent conferences, or wrote letters to parents. (TR- XVI, pp.10,11,20,31) Witnesses who complained of Respondent's disciplinary actions at hearing never stated what they expected him to do other than to formulate an additional code specifying an automatic consequence for every conceivable infraction. Such a rigidly defined code is neither required nor customary in Broward County. Moreover, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a code with such mathematical precision. The effective disciplining of students is an art, not a science, involving many human variables. It requires flexibility and the exercise of professional judgment. A rigid code which precludes a principal from taking into account the unique circumstances of each case would be inconsistent with the Discipline Code adopted by the Board. COUNTS 5 AND 6: DETERRENCE OF CHRONIC BEHAVIOR OFFENDERS Count 5 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action of causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said, students referred to you by teachers during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 6 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish adequate deterrent as a result of your action causing or allowing students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders as a result of your inadequately disciplining said students referred to you by teachers during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, the Board charges that Respondent failed to establish adequate deterrents and, as a result, he allowed or caused students to become chronic or serious behavior offenders during school year 1982-83. A. 1982-83 The Board has not shown what a "chronic behavior offender" 3/ is or how many students, out of the total student population of approximately 600, fit this category. Neither was it shown that there were a significant number of chronic offenders that "were caused" by Respondent's disciplinary actions. There was student misbehavior at Riverland Elementary School while Respondent was principal, as there was prior to his arrival and after his departure. It has not been shown that the misbehavior was caused by Respondent's efforts to enforce the Student Discipline Code. Many of the children at Riverland came from poor families. These children had little respect for authority and had attitude problems stemming from background and upbringing. Many came from single-parent homes. Many of the children who had behavior problems at school came from homes where discipline was lax or nonexistent. The student population was transient--students were constantly checking in or out of the school. Some students had repeated at least two grade levels so there were several children 13 or 14 years old. Some children had learning disabilities and could be disciplined only in accordance with their prescribed plans. (TR-II, pp.193,222; TR-X, pp.39, 40, 131; TR-XI, p.27; TR-XV, pp.39, 44, 46) Given the diversity and nature of this student body, it has not been shown how the repetitive misbehavior of five to ten of the students can be fairly or logically imputed to Respondent's action or inaction. These students, which the Board (at least for the purpose of this proceeding) classifies as "chronic offenders," were not identified, neither was each incident of misbehavior together with Respondent's disciplinary action, analyzed, compared and critiqued by qualified witnesses. Finally, though some students were referred numerous times, it has not been shown that there was an inordinate number of such students, given the nature and diversity of the student population. Neither does it appear that such repetitive referrals became a problem of serious concern to teachers. The SACS Report, prepared by the teachers at Riverland, does not indicate that a "chronic offender" problem existed at the school. (R-13) B. 1983-84 The nature of students at Riverland Elementary School during 1983-84 was similar to that of the previous year and the Board's failure of proof is, likewise, the same. Respondent applied the district-wide Discipline Code in disciplining the students. The teachers were responsible for the teaching of the Code to students, and for the management of students in their classrooms. All acknowledged that the proper disciplining of students is a joint or cooperative effort by teachers, administrators, and principals. The evidence fails to show that there was an inordinate number of repetitive referrals, neither does it disclose the identity of these children (including their particular acts of misbehavior and the discipline administered) or how Respondent's action was deficient. To the extent some children were repeatedly referred for misbehavior, it has not been shown that Respondent's disciplinary action was the cause. It may well be that the teachers of these children failed to properly control and prevent their misbehavior, or the misbehavior may be due more to the unique personality and family context of each child. (R-2) Indeed, the parents of some of these children tried, without success, to modify their behavior. There were occasions when Respondent would have two or three parental conferences concerning a child's misbehavior, yet--a few weeks later--the child would revert to inappropriate conduct. Several teachers who testified were critical of the effectiveness of Respondent's disciplinary action, but failed to indicate action that would have been more effective. Some teachers favored more use of external suspensions, but under School Board policy external suspensions are to be used only as the last resort. Respondent did suspend some students and the referral slips for 1983-84 showed he used corporal punishment extensively. (R-66) As with school year 1982-83, the record does not establish the identity and number of the "chronic or serious behavior offenders". A reasonable estimate would be that there were between five and ten children (out of 600 students) who had repetitive disciplinary referrals. There is no basis to conclude that this is an inappropriate or unusually high number. In a student population of this nature and diversity, it is perhaps unavoidable that there will be some students who will be repetitively referred for disciplinary action. This condition existed before Respondent arrived at Riverland--and has persisted since he left. COUNTS 7 AND 8 VERBAL AGREEMENTS-1982-83 AND 1983-84 Count 7 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 8 You are hereby charged with repeatedly ac- cepting or entering into verbal agreements with students who are repeat offenders that they will not repeat said negative behav- ior/offense in lieu of providing appropriate discipline which has resulted in a negative impact on student behavior and/or student discipline at Riverland Elementary School during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 In order to substantiate this charge, it was incumbent on the Board to identify those "repeat offender" students with whom Respondent entered into verbal agreements not to engage in the same conduct to specify the circumstances surrounding the infraction and to show that such verbal agreements were inappropriate. The appropriateness of a disciplinary action (otherwise authorized) cannot be determined without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Board has failed to substantiate its charges with concrete and specific evidence. Indeed the record is devoid of evidence establishing that Respondent even entered into verbal agreements with students during 1982-83, under any circumstances. (The Board apparently assumed that he entered into verbal agreements with children who were repeat offenders, that such agreements were "in lieu of providing any appropriate discipline," and that such action had a negative impact on student behavior and student discipline at Riverland Elementary School.) It was not shown that Respondent inappropriately used the Student Discipline Code in any instance when he "counseled" with students concerning inappropriate conduct. 4/ To determine appropriate discipline for an individual student, all of the factors contained on page 6 of the Discipline Code would have to be considered in light of the specific infraction. Because of the flexibility and discretion given school principals, any analysis less definitive would be incomplete. (R-2) B. 1983-84 In 1983-84, Respondent--who continued to use the Student Discipline Code--entered into verbal agreements with students, whereby the students agreed not to engage in further inappropriate conduct. It has not been shown that he entered such verbal agreements in lieu of any other more appropriate discipline, or that, in any particular case, the verbal agreement was inappropriate. "Repeat offenders" were not identified nor Respondent's action in any particular incident shown to be improper. As already mentioned, the Board has not demonstrated that Respondent failed to follow the Student Discipline Code in the meting out of discipline. Under this Code, the use of verbal agreements, as part of the overall discipline process, is appropriate. Thus the critical factor is not the entering into of verbal agreements (because verbal agreements are permitted), but rather whether he did so in lieu of other more appropriate discipline. But disciplinary action--otherwise permissible--cannot be found inappropriate without knowing the specific facts of an incident. Such facts have not been shown. COUNTS 9 AND 10 RAMPANT DISRESPECT AND VERBAL ABUSE Count 9 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1982-83 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 10 You are hereby charged with unacceptable performance in administering the school discipline program during the 1983-84 school year and said performance has led to rampant disrespect by students toward teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teacher instructions, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. A. 1982-83 Here the Board charges Respondent with "unacceptable performance" in administering the school discipline program during school year 1982-83. Respondent's discipline program was based on the Student Discipline Code and it was not shown that he ever violated that Code. The Board further charges that Respondent's disciplinary performance led to "rampant disrespect" by students towards teachers through verbal abuse and defiance of teachers' instructions. The evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of rampant disrespect for teachers by students. 5/ Neither was it shown that any specific incident of disrespect was attributable to Respondent's implementation of the Student Discipline Code. Once again, this charge rests on supposition and generalization and lacks a factual foundation. Assuming, arguendo, that a student verbally defies a teacher's instructions, the question becomes whether the defiance is attributable to a principal's conduct. There are several plausible reasons as for defiance of a teacher's instructions, many of them unrelated to a principal's actions or inactions. Teachers may fail in managing their classrooms and earning the respect of their students, parents may have neglected to teach their children to respect and obey teachers. Here, the Board has not established a causal relationship between Respondent's conduct and any defiance of teachers by students. Speculation or generalization cannot substitute for specific and concrete evidence. (TR-X, pp. 100,101) B. 1983-84 For similar reasons, the charge relating to school year 1983-84 is unsubstantiated. Rampant disrespect for teachers has not been shown. (TR-X, pp.9,10,16,17) It has not been shown that Respondent violated the Discipline Coded the foundation of his disciplinary process, during 1982-83 or 1983-84. Neither has rampant disrespect for teachers been shown. The SACS Report completed by the teachers at the conclusion of the 1983 school year, makes no mention of it. Neither do any memoranda, documents, or other school records support this claim. If student disrespect and defiance had been so widespread, it is likely that it would have been brought to the attention of School Board officials long before Mr. Dandy came to Riverland to listen to teachers' grievances on February 17, 1984. (R-13) COUNTS 11 AND 12 CONTRIBUTING TO SERIOUS DISCIPLINE AND/OR BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS WHEREIN STUDENTS EXHIBITED DEFIANCE Count 11 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 12 You are hereby charged with contributing to the serious discipline and/or student behav- ior problems which occurred at Riverland Elementary School during the 1982-83 school year, wherein students exhibited defiance and disrespect toward authority figures and toward, fellow students which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Counts 11 and 12, virtually identical to Counts 9 and 10, are, likewise, unsubstantiated by the evidence. The record is inadequate to support a conclusion that Respondent contributed to serious discipline or student behavior exhibiting defiance and disrespect toward teachers and fellow students. It is likely that student disrespect for or defiance of teachers occurs, at least occasionally, in every elementary school. Relevant questions are what was the frequency and magnitude of the defiance and disrespect; who were the offenders, and what factors or combination of factors caused or contributed to it? The evidence offered by the Board is non-specific and incapable of supplying answers to these questions. Count 13 THE LOCKING OF THE BATHROOMS BECAUSE OF VANDALISM Count 13 You are hereby charged with failing to di- rect, administer and maintain a program to foster proper student behavior in the halls to such an extent that during the 1983-84 school year one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism of bathrooms during the school day, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Here, alleged student misbehavior (establishing Respondent's incompetence and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty) was so bad that one set of bathrooms had to be locked because of fights among students and vandalism. This charge is unsubstantiated by concrete factually meaningful evidence; it is based, in the main, on hearsay and the unsupported conclusions of several teachers. It was not shown that vandalism in the bathrooms at Riverland Elementary increased or was at an unacceptably high level during 1983-84, or that any property damage was attributable to Respondent's performance of his duties. An occasional act of vandalism or damage to school property cannot, by itself and without more, support a conclusion that a principal is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in officer or willful neglect of duty. Neither was it shown that there were students fights in the bathrooms, or that fights occurred with such frequency that Respondent was forced to close the bathrooms. Rather, students would gather in the bathrooms prior to school starting and get into mischief. Mary Jo Sluder a teacher who was also Safety Patrol Director and supervised the school hallways, complained to Respondent that she was having problems watching both sets of bathrooms before school started. Respondent asked if it would help if one set of bathrooms remained locked until the second bell at 8:15 a.m., signaling the start of school. Ms. Sluder replied that it would be helpful and the plan was implemented. So one set of bathrooms remained locked for approximately 15 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., while children were at school. At 8:15 a.m., it was opened. (TR- XVI, pp.41,42; TR-IV, p.452) This was an acceptable strategy used by other principals under similar circumstances, and violated no rule or policy of the School Board. Between the first (8:00 a.m.) and second (8:15 a.m.) bells, bathrooms were always accessible to students. Respondent's action was a rational measured response to a problem perceived by the Safety Patrol Director and it obtained positive results without imposing a hardship on anyone. The danger of relying on hearsay and generalized conclusions of others is illustrated by the testimony offered to support this charge. Mr. Dandy, Respondent's immediate Area Supervisor and an individual who identified Respondent's action as deficient, admitted that he had no specific facts to support this charge; he had only talked to teachers and had reviewed no vandalism records at the school. Of the teachers who testified, one did not know if vandalism had increased during Respondent's tenure over that which had occurred under his predecessor; one did not know how long the bathrooms were closed. Although one teacher testified that it was common knowledge that the bathroom was locked because of vandalism--and this was the extent of her knowledge--vandalism was not discussed at the faculty meetings. Teachers would sometimes stop in the girls' and boys' bathrooms, to tell them to quit playing around. One teacher who complained of vandalism never witnessed conditions inside the bathrooms, never wrote disciplinary referrals for students who congregated in them, and never sent them to Respondent's office. (TR-V, pp. 578,774, TR-II, pp.242, 243, 245, 324; TR-IV, pp. 433, 451; TR-VI, pp. 871,872; TR-X, p.150) COUNTS 14 AND 15: TOO MUCH TIME OFF-CAMPUS AND NOT ENOUGH ON-CAMPUS VISIBILITY Count 14 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary School during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 15 You are hereby charged with spending too much or inordinate amounts of time in your office and/or off campus and not making yourself visible enough among students which has contributed to poor student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen, tary School during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon, duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. These charges accuse Respondent of spending too much time off-campus or in his officer and not making himself "visible enough" among students, thus contributing to poor student disciplinary behavior. Once again, as with the other charges, there is no evidence that Respondent, during 1982-83, spent too much time or an inordinate amount of time in his office or off-campus. This was not identified as a problem by the SACS Report or documented by any exhibit in evidence. A principal is evaluated based on his or her performance. Respondent's evaluations for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were totally acceptable. Neither indicates Respondent spent inordinate amounts of time in his office or off-campus, or that he did not make himself "visible enough." Respondent, charged with the responsibility of administering an entire school, attended numerous off-campus functions such as county directed meetings, parent conferences, visitations, professional meetings, and community service projects relating to Riverland Elementary School. His attendance was legitimate and, in most instances, required. (TR-I, p.74; TR-VIII, pp.40,42; TR-XIII, pp.14,16,20; TR-XV, p.46, R-45) It was not shown (nor was it alleged) that Respondent was unlawfully or inappropriately engaging in personal activities off campus. The charges focus on the frequency of his absences, not his whereabouts. The school district official who prepared this charge had no independent knowledge of Respondent's absences, and did no analysis to determine the extent of his absences from campus. Rather, he simply relied on and reiterated vague conclusions offered by several teachers dissatisfied with Respondent's performance. (TR-II, p.246; TR-IV, p.888; TR-VIII, pp.23, 24, 143) Mr. Stephenson, the school district official who helped prepare the charge, never asked Respondent about his alleged excessive absenteeism from campus because (according to Stephenson) that would be a normal routine matter discussed between a principal and his Area Superintendent (Mr. Dandy). But Mr. Dandy never asked Respondent about alleged excessive absenteeism either. (TR- XIII, p.140) The evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was absent from campus for an inordinate amount of time. The only evidence in support of the accusation is sporadic hearsay, or conclusions by others lacking a factual basis. Rather, the evidence establishes that Respondent's presence on campus was sufficient and that, if he left campus, he handled any disciplinary problems (that arose in his absence) upon his return. His secretary always knew where he was. A teacher could find out where he was by simply asking his secretary. (TR-I, p.75; TR-X, p.32) As to Respondent's alleged poor visibility among students, there is no specific factual information pertaining to 1982-83, so this charge is unsubstantiated. As for 1983-84, the evidence was also insufficient to support a conclusion that Respondent was not "visible enough." No standard of visibility was established against which Respondent's conduct could be measured. There is no evidence in the record that anyone (teachers, parents, or administrators) complained to Respondent about his visibility or asked that he become more visible on campus. (TR-VIII, p.91) Testimony by several teachers on this subject was inconsistent and contradictory. Some offered critical opinions, but their conclusions lacked factual support, they simply had a feeling that he should have been more visible. In contrast, some teachers felt that Respondent was "sufficiently visible;" Ms. Kasmarik testified that he was always around the campus and always walking down the halls: CROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Panza) Ms. Kasmarik, isn't it a fact that it's your opinion that you're better off with discipline when Mr. Sulcer was there than you are right now with the new principal? Isn't that a fact? Isn't that what you just said within the last couple of weeks? A. We have the same kinds of problems that we had when Mr. Sulcer was there. Q. Same kinds of problems with the new principal, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Are those same kinds of problems based upon the type of children, in your opinion, that are in that school? A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned--Just kind of working backwards a little bit--that visibility was a problem or--not was a problem, is not a problem. You said Mr. Sulcer was walking the hall? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Sulcer went into classrooms, is that correct? A. Yes. He was in and out of the classroom all the time. Q. So teachers could see him around the school. He wasn't--he was there physically in the school? A. Yes. (TR-X, pp.121-122) Ms. Bullock, another teacher critical of Respondent's performance, admitted that he had been visible and had visited her classroom 15 to 20 times: DIRECT-EXAMINATION Q. (By Mr. Montante) Did you ever tell him it was necessary to come down [to observe her class? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell him it was necessary to become visible? A. No. Q. Did he ever offer to become visible to you? A. No. I felt he was visible. Q. Several times a year? A. Yes. Q. How long is the school year, ma'am? A. From August until June. Q. August until June? A. Yes. Q. That's a period of 11 months. A. Ten months. The school year is ten months. Q. He came down to the classroom several times: A. Several times. Q. Three times in 11 months. A. I didn't say three times. Several. How many is several? A. Ten, 15, 20. (e.s.) (TR-XI, pp.61,62) Although Ms. Ross, another teachers claimed that his visibility was almost non- existent, her location in the library (where she worked) was such that she would not have known when he was out of his office or in it. Ms. Bullock, another teacher, never asked him to come to her room because it wasn't necessary. (TR- VI, pp. 823,828; TR-XI, p.61) The vague and indefinite charge of not "enough visibility" must be based on more then the subjective, unsubstantiated judgment of a critical teacher. To be meaningful, the charge must be put in a factual context. In a letter to Dr. Stephenson, the district administrator involved in preferring the charges, Respondent's counsel asked for specific information on the charge so that Respondent could comply with Mr. Dandy's March 21, 1984 directive requiring improvement in this area: 4. Monitor hallways frequently through- out the school day (in an attempt to assist in undesirable behavior on the part of students (Effective immediately) Mr. Sulcer will, as he always has, monitor the hallways. As I am certain you are well aware, it is impossible to be in the hallway all day if one is expected to be a Principal of a school. Once again, I would request specific instances of when Mr. Sulcer was negligent in his monitoring of the hallways which allowed undesirable behavior to take place. I would also like to have the specif- ic set of circumstances that the administra- tion of the School Board can demonstrate that there was undesirable behavior on the part of students because of Mr. Sulcer's conduct. I would like to know the exact amount of time required by Mr. Dandy so Bob Sulcer can comply. If Mr. Dandy is going to evaluate Bob Sulcer in this area, he (Dandy) must know exactly how much time he expects Sulcer to spend. (R-50) This letter went unanswered. COUNTS 16 AND 17 SUPPLIES Count 16 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1982-83 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 17 You are hereby charged with failing to supply teachers with basic materials and supplies such as paper, crayons, scissors, etc., thus depriving student [sic] from essential mate- rials necessary for optimum instructions during the 1983-84 school year, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. There were no records of any kind, type or description, offered in evidence to support the allegations that school supplies were inadequate during 1982-83. One team chairperson during 1982-83 and 1983-84 never heard a complaint about lack of supplies. Dr. Stephenson, the school district administrator who helped prepare this charge, became aware of the alleged budget problem through information he received in writing from Ms. Elmore, a teacher critical of Respondent's performance. Based on Ms. Elmore's submittal, he concluded that there was a lack of materials and supplies at Riverland, a situation which should not have existed because adequate funds were available. He never independently investigated to determine if Ms. Elmore's statements were correct. (TR-XI, p.19; TR-VIII, pp.11,151) Ms. Elmore, a Faculty Chairperson at Riverland, had been told by the school bookkeeper that there was a freeze on supplies in 1983-84. She never personally asked Respondent for supplies, and he never told her that funds were unavailable. She felt that it was unnecessary to bother Respondent "with things that minor." (TR-V, pp.771,776) Ms. Ross, a grade level chairperson responsible for coordinating the ordering of supplies for teachers under her control, had no difficulty ordering supplies or books except that, when the funds were frozen, she "couldn't spend the money in my budget for awhile." (TR-VI, p.819) (She never asked Respondent if the budget was frozen.) She had all materials needed to currently teach her students. (Funds were temporarily unavailable only while the F.T.E. count was underway, a situation which was not unusual in the school district). When told the budget was frozen during F.T.E. count, she simply delayed ordering until the count was completed, she "had enough (supplies) to carry (her) over past the F.T.E. count." (TR-VI, p.865) After the count, she was allowed to order whatever she needed. (TR-VI, pp.819, 862, 864, 865) Ms. Ordway, a fifth grade teacher, who had switched to kindergarten, testified that she was unable to get necessary books and supplies for her kindergarten class. However, Ms. Callender, her Faculty Grade Level Chairperson, testified that Ms. Ordway as well as the rest of her grade group, had supplies the entire year. Ms. Callender also testified that Ms. Ordway was given permission to go to the A.B.C. Store to purchase whatever supplies she needed. Ms. Callender's testimony, more precise and less emotional than Ms. Ordway's, is accepted as persuasive. (TR-X, pp.28,48) Respondent did not turn down any supply order for materials that were needed for classes during 1982-83 and 1983- 84. The charge that teachers lacked supplies in 1983-84 is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (TR-XVI, pp.57,58,61) Finally, Ms. Elmore, one of the teachers most critical of Respondent's performances testified that she did not have enough supplies for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Her testimony was conclusory and is rejected as lacking in credibility. Finally, the SACS Report does not mention any problem with supplies at Riverland Elementary School for 1982-83. It is likely that if there was a supply problem of the magnitude alleged, it would have been mentioned in the SACS Report. The evidence does not establish that any children at Riverland were denied instructional materials due to lack of supplies. These charges are unsubstantiated. (TR-V, p.580; R-13) COUNTS 18 AND 19: SECOND IN COMMAND Count 18 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence during the 1982-83 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from campus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office/and or willful neglect or duty. Count 19 You are hereby charged with failing to desig- nate a teacher as second in command and/or failing to inform the faculty which teacher would be in charge during your absence until approximately January 1984 of the 1983-84 school year, thereby leaving the school unsupervised during your absences from cam- pus, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Respondent appointed a second in command or designee at Riverland Elementary School for years 1982-83 and 1983-84. For 1982-83, Respondent appointed Polly Jones as his second in command or designee. There was no requirement to identify the second in command by posting a notice. However, Mr. Dandy, the Area Superintendent, required principals within his area to advise him of the name of the second in command at the commencement of the school year. Respondent notified him in accordance with this requirement. (TR-I, p.32; TR- VII, p.92; TR-XVI, p.7) During 1982-83, Ms. Jones handled discipline referrals during Respondent's absence and signed as designee. Teachers who were unaware of who the second in command needed only to ask. Respondent's secretary, the office personnel, and administrative staff were informed that Ms. Jones was the appointed second in command. (TR-XVI, pp.7,104) The contention that problems resulted from some teachers not knowing who was second in command during 1982-83, is unsupported by the evidence. No teacher asked Respondent who was second in command--either in person (at grade level chairperson meetings, faculty meetings, in the halls, at SACS Committee Meetings) or by memorandum. Ms. Elmore who was Faculty Chairperson during 1982- 83, never placed the question of who was second in command on the faculty agendas though she had the authority to do so. Although she testified that she did not know who was second in command in 1982-83, she did not ask Respondent or her grade/level chairperson who, ironically, was Ms. Jones, the second in command. In any case, most teachers at Riverland knew Polly Jones handled disciplinary problems in Respondent's absences and expected her to do so. (TR- V, pp.598, 763) For school year 1983-84, Respondent designated Elaine Callender as his second in command. Again, he informed Mr. Dandy of his action at the beginning of the school year. Although most teachers knew that she was the second in command, they did not hear it officially from Respondent. They knew that Ms. Callender could, and did, administer corporal punishment in Respondent's absence. Finally, teachers in 1983-84 knew, or should have known, that Ms. Callender was the second in command because she signed referral slips above the signature line marked "Designee": copies of the completed slip are normally returned to the referring teacher. (TR-I, pp.34,35; TR-X, p.5, TR-XVI, p. 175) These charges must fail since Respondent did, in fact, appoint a designee, and the teachers knew or could have known by simply asking him. Although it was suggested (through hearsay testimony) that students were disciplined by secretaries, there is no substantial evidence to support that implication. When the issue of who was second in command surfaced up at the faculty meeting on November 15, 1983 (as part of 12 identified concerns) would it not have seemed reasonable at the time for someone to ask Respondent who was second in command? The Faculty Council, after it was organized and operational in the early part of January, did ask Respondent, stating that some teachers claimed they did not know who was second in command and wanted this information posted. Respondent posted his second in command that very day. (Mr. Dandy's testimony that the second in command was not posted until mid-February is rejected as clearly erroneous.) (TR-XII, p.87; TR-XIII, p.123) COUNTS 20 AND 21: MORALE Count 20 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1982-83 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency, and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 21 You are hereby charged with failing to estab- lish and maintain positive lines of communi- cation with the faculty and students during the 1983-84 school year at Riverland Elemen- tary regarding student discipline which has contributed to the decline of faculty morale toward the principal relative to student discipline, which constitutes incompetency. These two Counts center on the issue of faculty morale as it related to student discipline caused allegedly by Respondent's failure to maintain positive lines of communication with faculty and students during schools years 1982-83 and 1983, 84. Morales a somewhat amorphous term, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "the state of the spirits of an individual or group as shown in willingness to perform assigned tasks, confidence, cheerfulness, and discipline." Although affected by many variables, morale is not a subject incapable of measurement. Instead of utilizing an objective or standard method to determine the level of morale at Riverland the School Board presented the testimony of selected teachers, for the most part, the same teachers who were on the ad hoc disciplinary committee and among Respondent's most avid critics. Their testimony lacks credibility and fails to support a conclusion that morale was lowered due to Respondent's handling of discipline problems. They were the teachers who complained most about morale. They gave secret testimony to Dr. Stephenson, the ranking administrator, who developed the charges against Respondent and they were, generally, unwilling to cooperate with Respondent and other teachers (led by the Faculty Council), who were attempting (between November, 1983 and March 1984) to develop ways to improve discipline at Riverland. 6/ No systematic evaluation of faculty morale, using any acceptable and reliable method, was ever undertaken. A poll was conducted at Riverland Elementary in connection with the Official Progress Report of the School Board. The poll indicated that 86 percent of the teachers thought that Riverland was a good school. Ninety-two percent of the parents with children at Riverland responded, "this is a good school." (TR-IV 34 p.461) These results detract from the weight to be given the adverse opinions of the several teachers (testifying at hearing) most critical of Respondent's performance. (TR-IV, p.461; R-19) COUNT 22 FAILING TO DISCIPLINE A STUDENT Count 22 You are hereby charged with failing to disci- pline a student who said to a teacher's aided "Fuck You," during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On one occasion during the 1983-84 school year, a child cursed at a teacher's aide, Ms. Williams, who promptly referred the student to Respondent's office. Respondent asked the student for an explanation and the child admitted that he had said the disrespectful words and was ready to be spanked. Respondent asked Ms. Williams (the aide that was cursed at) to enter the office and witness the corporal punishment. After she entered, the child refused to submit to the spanking and constantly moved around, putting his hands across his buttocks and fidgeting making it difficult for Respondent to administer corporal punishment without injuring him. Under these circumstances, Respondent decided not to administer the corporal punishment for fear of injuring the child's hands. Instead, he telephoned the child's parents and told them the child refused the spanking. The parents told him they would punish the child, by using a belt. (TR-XVI, pp.53-54; TR-X, pp.67-68,85) This particular child did not have any further behavior problems at Riverland Elementary. Respondent did not ignore, dismiss, or fail to discipline this child. His handling of this incident of disrespect toward an aide was appropriate and consistent with the Discipline Code. (Although the Board faults him for not reporting the incident to the Department of Internal Affairs, Board Policy 4018, reasonably construed, does not require the reporting of every instance of student disrespect toward a teacher.) Since Respondent properly disciplined the child, the charge must fail. COUNT 23 RAT-INFESTED ROOM Count 23 You are hereby charged with failing to take appropriate action to remove kindergarten students at the request of the teacher from a rat infested room after being informed by the teacher that rats were prevalent in the area, subjecting kindergarten students to rat poison which had been placed by custodial personnel in the students' classroom, and refusing from approximately February 28, 1984, to March 7, 1984, to relocate said kindergarten students from said classroom to an empty portable on the school site which action had been formerly requested by the complaining kindergarten teachers which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. On March 1, 1984, Ms. Ordway, a kindergarten teacher at Riverland Elementary, complained to Respondent about a mouse she had seen in her classroom. He told her that he would get the custodian on it right away, which he did on that same day. The custodian set out traps that night, Respondent also went to Ms. Ordway's classroom that night to make sure that the traps were placed so that there would be no danger to the children. He continued to periodically check the room after school throughout the week, he looked for evidence of mice, but found none. Meanwhile, Ms. Ordway did not ask to have her class moved and her class remained at its regular location. (TR-XVI, pp.71- 73,87,155,254) On Thursday, March 8, 1984, approximately one week after Ms. Ordway had complained of a mouse, Mr. Dandy telephoned Respondent and told him of a complaint he had received (presumably from Ms. Ordway) concerning the mice situation. Respondent immediately called the Area Maintenance Office and requested assistance, then contacted Omni Pest Control and asked them to come out that day. (Respondent had not called the exterminator prior to this because neither he nor the custodian had found evidence of mice, and the custodian was actively addressing the complaint.) (TR-XVI, pp.72,154,157) Omni Pest Control came out on Monday, March 12, 1984, around noontime. Respondent immediately relocated Ms. Ordway's class since he assumed that the exterminator might use chemicals hazardous to children. The exterminator treated the classroom and returned two days later to do a follow- up. At 7:30 a.m. on March 19, 1984, the exterminator returned to check the classroom. Respondent, unavailable to talk to him at that time, called him later to check on the classroom's condition. The exterminator, having found no evidence of mice, told him that the mouse sighting "must have been a fluke." (TR-XVI, pp.72-73,86,88,155,157,159) The evidence does not support a conclusion that Ms. Ordway's classroom was infested with mice or rats. She is the only person who sighted one, and her testimony about what she saw, and the frequency of her sighting's, was inconsistent. No other mice were sighted and no evidence of mice was found by those who investigated and responded to her complaint: Respondent, a Health Department inspector, the school custodian, and the professional exterminator. Respondent reacted to Ms. Ordway's complaint in a reasonable and timely manner. The school custodian was the person who would normally investigate and handle such a complaint. When Respondent received a second complaint, he immediately contacted a professional exterminator despite the fact that he and others had found no evidence of mice in the classroom. This charge is based on the exaggerated complaint of Ms. Ordway, a teacher who, seemingly, Respondent could not mollify. COUNTS 24 AND 25 FAILING TO COOPERATE Count 24 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the declining [sic] student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1982-83 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Count 25 You are hereby charged with failing to util- ize the suggestions of parents and teachers and/or work cooperatively with said groups to improve the increasing student disci- pline/behavior problems at Riverland Elemen- tary during the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board failed to substantiate its charge that during 1982-83 or 1983-84, Respondent failed to utilize the suggestions of parents and work with them to improve student discipline at Riverland Elementary. Indeed, there is no evidence that any parents made specific suggestions to Respondent concerning ways to improve student discipline. Even if, arguendo, suggestions were submitted, there was no showing that Respondent was obliged to follow theme irrespective of their merit. Although the School Board also charges Respondent with failing to utilize the suggestions of, and work with, teachers, the opposite was shown. Respondent relied on the teachers of Riverland. He routinely asked them to address problems, and suggest specific changes, usually he implemented their suggestions. One of his management techniques to maximize participation was to set up committees of teachers to address problems and make recommendations. His conviction was that since teachers were a vital part of the school, they should have a say in how it was run--and what changes should be made. He respected their views and welcomed their comments. For example, in late 1983 and early 1984, he encouraged the Faculty Council to devise ways to improve student discipline. When the Council presented him with a School Wide Disciplinary Plan (suggesting numerous changes to improve student discipline) he promised to implement it. (In contrast, some teachers refused to cooperate with either the Faculty Council or Respondent, and were determined to leave student discipline problems to Respondent--alone--to solve.) Another example was his formation of a Cafeteria Committee (of teachers) to address student misbehavior in the cafeteria--a focal point of student "horseplay" in most elementary schools. The Committee met and formulated a plan, which Respondent approved and implemented. Both charges must be dismissed for failure of proof. (TR-III, p.387; TR-V, p.708; TR-VI, p.819; TR-XI, pp. 143,149,150,162; TR-XV, pp.59,110; TR-XVI, p.76) COUNT 26 THE CAFETERIA Count 26 You are hereby charged with failing to prop- erly maintain student control and discipline in the cafeteria and/or inadequately super- vising and/or providing inadequate supervi- sion of students which has resulted in chaos throughout the 1982-83 school year and has continued through the 1983-84 school year, which constitutes incompetency and/or miscon- duct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The School Board has not established a standard against which the adequacy of the supervision and control of students in school cafeterias can be judged. Elementary school students abound with energy and will sometimes run in cafeterias. Such running occurred prior to Respondent's arrival at Riverland, and continues, even now. As one witness summed it up, "Every child runs." . . . [and] "Kids are kids." (TR-X, p.78) These cafeterias are noisy, relatively unstructured places where children, within limits, are free to be themselves. No evidence was presented showing that, on a comparative basis, student behavior in the Riverland cafeteria was any worse than that prevalent in the other elementary schools. Indeed, Dr. Gail Daly (an experienced elementary school principal and chosen by the School Board to investigate Respondent's performance at Riverland) visited the school's cafeteria and found student behavior acceptable. (TR-XV, p.59) Although some teachers were critical of Respondent's visibility in the student cafeteria, they rarely ate their own lunches there (to help maintain order)-- even though they could leave school a half-hour early for doing so. Since most teachers did not eat their lunches with the students, supervision of student behavior in the cafeteria was left, for the most part, to teachers' aides. This was an acceptable practice in the various elementary schools. Any student misbehavior which may have existed in the cafeteria was not serious enough to warrant being brought to Respondent's attention, either by the group of teachers who identified "12 concerns" at Riverland or to Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor who responded to them. The teachers "12 concerns" do not mention misbehavior in the cafeteria, neither do Mr. Dandy's letters of February 24, and March 1, 1984 (which identify deficiencies in Respondent's performance and require corrective action). This charge must fail for lack of proof. (P-5, P-6, R-2) COUNT 27 FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES AS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1-26 Count 27 You are hereby charged with failing to ade- quately perform your duties as principal with respect to student discipline/behavior as enumerated in the above counts during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years to such an extent that your effectiveness as a principal in this area has been impaired serious enough to warrant your dismissal as principal for "good and sufficient reasons, which consti- tutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. The efficacy of this charge depends on a positive finding that Respondent failed to adequately perform his duties as principal with respect to student discipline during 1982-83 and 1983-84, as alleged in the foregoing counts, Nos. 1 through 26. Since these counts were not sustained by the evidence, the charge fails. COUNT 28 SWILLEY REPORT Count 28 You are hereby charged with failing to demon- strate competent performance as an adminis- trator in one or more of the following areas: the administrative and supervisory require- ments and/or communication skills and/or management techniques and/or exercise learn- ing and goal achievement and/or human and interpersonal relationships for the school year (or any part thereof) 1983-84, which constitutes incompetency and/or misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty. Dr. Stephenson, then Associate Superintendent of Personnel, requested a review of Respondent on April 3, 1984, for the purpose of determining his competence. The Department of Education selected Henrietta Swilley (from Bay County) to conduct the competency review. She visited Riverland Elementary from May 1, 1984, to May 3, 1984, (2 1/2 days) one-half day short of the three-day observation required by 6B-5.02(12) Florida Administrative Code. On or about July, 1984, she sent to the School Board her undated and unsigned report. This report was placed in evidence by the School Board as an attachment to a deposition taken of Respondent. Neither Ms. Swilley nor any School Board official testified about the contents of this report, or vouched for its accuracy. Consequently, Respondent's ability to challenge the accuracy of its opinions and conclusions, or examine those who developed or relied on it, was limited. The report, however, is hearsay which, though admissible, can be used only to explain or corroborate other evidence, it cannot, in itself, support a finding of fact. See, 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Apart from this limitation on its use, the report is replete with factual errors, misstatements, and inconsistencies. It appends materials which do not correspond to references in the report. These errors detract from the weight which might otherwise be given to the report, and place in doubt the credibility of its assertions and conclusions. Several examples should suffice. On pages 4 and 5 of the report, Ms. Swilley reviews teacher observations and evaluations. Of the eight teachers listed, the evaluations of only four were included in the appendix. She indicates that Respondent held conferences with all eight teachers on the same day, May 17, 1983. The four evaluations appended, however, show that the conferences were held on March 3, 16, and April 12 and 15, 1983. On page 5, she faults Respondent of using similar or "patterned" comments on seven of the eight teachers evaluated. But she does not show how this violated any rule or standard of practice. (Mr. Dandy, Area Supervisor, using a similar form, includes no comments, whatsoever, on his evaluations of principals, a practice which, in his views was perfectly acceptable. (TR-XII, p.43).) On page 6, she states: From studying the 1983 evaluations of Ms. Elayna Cross and Ms. Catherine Phoenix it was unclear to this reviewer as to how much time Mr. Sulcer spent observing these teachers. Yet, the time Respondent spent in observing Ms. Phoenix (9:15 to 10:15 on March 3, 1983) is shown on the top of her evaluation contained in the appendix. On page 6, Ms. Swilley further states: If the sampling of evaluations studied is an indication of administrative progress in the area of assessment, all other continuing contract employees on staff would have to be evaluated within 25 days from my visit in order to stay within the confines of the negotiated contract [which prohibited princi- pals from conducting evaluations during the last week of school]. But the evaluations in her sampling were completed, and applied only to the prior school year--1982-83, not 1983-84. Thus her conclusion lacks support. (In fact, Respondent had approximately ten teachers left to evaluate after Ms. Swilley's visit in May, 1984 [TR-XVI, p.77].) Finally, on pages 6,7, Ms. Swilley questions whether Respondent acted as an instructional leader at Riverland. She opines as to what Respondent would have observed if he had visited the classrooms, and includes the results of her interviews with an unknown number of teachers. Among those teachers were Ms. Ross, Ms. Sluder and Ms. Elmore. (These were Respondent's most vociferous critics and members of the original ad hoc faculty committee which identified "12 concerns" at Riverland.) The assertions of Ms. Ross and Ms. Sluder--hearsay, once removed--concerning Respondent's alleged failure to visit or observe their classes are rejected in favor of Respondent's more persuasive testimony to the contrary. (TR-X, p.121; TR-XVI, pp.46-47) The School Board has not shown, by independent evidence, that Respondent failed to demonstrate competence in any of she areas described in this charge. Thus the Swilley Report, even if internally consistent, cannot support a finding of incompetence. This charge must also fail. FAILURE OF SCHOOL SYSTEM TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL RULES In recommending the suspension and dismissal of Respondent, the Superintendent of Schools failed to follow procedures governing dismissal. Rule 6B-4.08, entitled, "Criteria for Dismissal Procedures," provides: 6B-4.08 Criteria for Dismissal Procedures. When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immedi- ate supervisor of the individual should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequence if not corrected. Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employee to correct the matter which could cause his or her dismissal if not corrected. Except in extremely serious circum- stances, the employee should be given suffi- cient time, following notification, for improvement. Any charges of undesirable traits or practices should be bona fide, verifiable, and clearly stated to the employee in writ- ing. Any employee thus charged should have a fair opportunity to explain or otherwise defend himself or herself, as provided in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. These criteria mandate that an employee be advised of deficiencies which may result in his dismissals and that he be given sufficient time, following notice, to improve or correct the deficiencies. Here, Mr. Dandy, as Area Supervisor, routinely evaluated Respondent on January 31, 1984, and found him satisfactory when judged against all performance criteria. On February 17, 1984, approximately two weeks later, Mr. Dandy--at the invitation of Ms. Elmore or Ms. Sluder--came to Riverland Elementary and met with some teachers who had gathered to complain to him about lack of student discipline. After hearing the complaints of several teachers, Mr. Dandy--precipitously--told them he was now in control, that they should hence forth come directly to him. Some teachers were intimated by his manner and aggressiveness. Instead of asking individual teachers about any perceived problems, he asked, "Do you feel the rest of the teachers feel . . . is a problem?" or words to that effect. On February 21, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy met with the teachers again and, this time, invited Respondent to attend. Respondent, though genuinely surprised by this turn of events, came to the meeting and responded to each of the complaints or concerns raised by the teachers. On February 24, 1984, three days later, Mr. Dandy wrote Respondent outlining the teachers' complaints or concerns and asked for a written response by March 1, 1984. Respondent complied, submitting a timely response addressing, as specifically as possible, each of the concerns. Mr. Dandy responded with a second letter on March 21, 1984, directing Respondent to take eight corrective actions (Mr. Dandy never subsequently evaluated Respondent to determine if those directives were satisfactorily carried out, though he admits improvements were being made.) On March 22, 1984, one day after receiving Mr. Dandy's eight directives, the Superintendent filed the charges against Respondent which later (with one added count) became the basis for Respondent's dismissal. (P-5; P-6; P-19; TR-XII, p.47; TR-XIII, pp. 14, 47, 72, 128, 129) The complaint about Respondent's performance voiced by some teachers to Mr. Dandy were never thoroughly, and conscientiously, investigated or verified by Mr. Dandy prior to his undermining Respondent's authority and, to some extent, taking control of the school away from him. When Respondent was finally informed of the complaints he responded to each in a professional and meaningful way. He was then given "directives," quickly followed by charges, without being given a fair opportunity to take corrective action and effectively respond to the complaints. In their hasty action, school board officials disregarded or were oblivious to the requirements of Rule 6B-4.08. This is all the more perplexing in light of the fact that Mr. Dandy, the Area Supervisor and Respondent's immediate supervisor, never recommended--then or now--that Respondent be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all charges against Respondent be dismissed, that he be reinstated with full back-pay and emoluments of employment; and that he be awarded reasonable attorney's fees which he actually expended in his defense or which he has legal duty to pay. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1985.
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue Whether Arthurine Brown (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade School Board (the School Board) on July 3, 2013, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. NMSHS is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2012-2013 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. The School Board assigned Respondent to a self-contained, special education classroom at NMSHS taught by Dorothy Roberts. Respondent has worked at NMSHS as a paraprofessional since 2004. During the 2012-2013 school year, paraprofessionals Frantzso Brice and Larry Eason were also assigned to Ms. Roberts' classroom. Ms. Roberts' class consisted of 13 special needs children with varying exceptionalities. The vast majority of Ms. Roberts' class was of Haitian descent. Ms. Roberts' students included P.P.C. (the Student), a non-verbal child on the autism spectrum. The Student is a 14-year-old male who functions at the level of a two or three-year-old child. On January 17, 2013, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Brice, and Respondent were in the process of escorting children into the classroom for the beginning of the school day when an incident involving Respondent and the Student occurred. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Brice, and Respondent were in the classroom when the incident occurred. Mr. Eason was not in the classroom when the incident occurred. After the Student entered the classroom at approximately 7:15 a.m., he picked up Respondent's purse from a table and went towards a window. What happened next is in dispute. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent cornered the Student, grabbed him by the throat with her left hand, and slapped him in the face using the palm of her right hand. Ms. Roberts heard the sound of the slap. Ms. Roberts and Mr. Brice described the slap as being very hard. Ms. Roberts heard Respondent warn against "touching her fucking shit." Mr. Brice heard Respondent warn against "touching her fucking stuff." 1/ Immediately after the incident, the Student had tears in his eyes, but his face had no observable bruising or swelling. Ms. Roberts immediately reported her version of the incident to Michael Lewis, the principal of NMSHS. After talking to Ms. Roberts, Mr. Lewis interviewed Respondent in Ms. Roberts' classroom, without Ms. Roberts being present. Mr. Lewis removed Respondent from the classroom, and instigated an investigation that culminated in this proceeding. Respondent had no justification for striking the Student. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent repeatedly used profanity in front of students and co-workers. Ms. Roberts repeatedly told Respondent to stop using profanity, but Respondent did not heed that instruction. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent repeatedly made derogatory remarks about Haitians. Respondent stated that she was tired of working with "fucking" Haitians and declared that Haitians were dumb, stupid, and should go home. Mr. Brice, who is Haitian, felt disrespected by Respondent's disparaging statements. At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 2013, the School Board suspended Respondent's employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Arthurine Brown and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2013.
