The Issue Whether Respondent's teacher's certificate should be revoked or Respondent otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Section 238.28(1), F.S., as set forth in the Petition herein, dated July 24, 1978. This proceeding arises from a petition filed by the Professional Practices Council, Department of Education, on July 24, 1978, that seeks to revoke or suspend the teaching certificate of Respondent Doris J. Black, an elementary school teacher in the public schools of Gadsden County, Florida. The petition alleges that Respondent issued a number of worthless checks during the period 1974-1978, and an instance of shoplifting in 1977. Respondent requested an administrative hearing on the charges on August 21, 1978. The petition was amended on August 31, 1978, to allege two additional bad-check charges occurring in 1978. Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent under Section 238.28(1), Florida Statutes, on the basis that her conduct constitutes gross immorality and personal conduct which reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the Gadsden County School Board, and under Section 231.09(2), Florida Statutes, in that she has not set a proper example for students. The petition further asserts that Respondent's conduct is sufficiently notorious to bring her and the education profession into public disgrace and disrespect. At the commencement of the hearing, Respondent admitted the allegations contained in the petition, as amended, but reserved the right to present extenuating and mitigating circumstances. Nevertheless, the parties agreed that evidence would be presented by both parties in support of their respective positions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 264506, Post Graduate, Rank II, valid through June 30, 1981, covering the area of elementary education and junior college. She has been employed in the public schools of Gadsden County at George Munroe Elementary School as an elementary teacher for eight and one-half years. (Petition, testimony of Boyd, Respondent) In 1969, Respondent opened a checking account at the Quincy State Bank, Quincy, Florida, Account No. 0123237100, in the name of Doris Black. Respondent also maintained a checking account at the Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Quincy, Florida, Account No. 115027, in the name of Doris Black during the years 1977-1978. On June 3, 1975, Respondent opened Checking Account No. 700666 in the name of Doris B. Tucker in the Lewis State Bank, Tallahassee, Florida. The account was opened with a deposit of $1,000, but became overdrawn on June 18, 1975, and was closed on August 28, 1975 for being in an overdrawn status whereby service charges of $182.51 had accrued. During the period June-August, 1975, the bank returned 37 checks for insufficient funds. Respondent continued writing checks on the closed account for approximately two years after it had been closed. (Testimony of Smith, Dawson, Hutchinson, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-5) Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, as supported by Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1, the following facts are found as to certain checks issued by Respondent on the above-cited checking accounts: On or about July 15, 1974, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $14.55 to A. L. Wilson Company in Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Quincy State Bank to pay same on presentation. Doris J. Black was arrested on or about September 9, 1974, and posted a bond in the amount of $40.00. The bond was estreated on October 15, 1974. Between the period November 25, 1974, to January 4, 1975, Doris J. Black presented six checks in the amount of $41.75 to Kelley Junior Store of Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such checks that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Quincy State Bank to pay same upon presentation. On September 20, 1975, Doris J. Black was arrested and charged with six counts of issuing worthless checks; she posted a $50.00 bond which was estreated on November 3, 1975. On or about March 15, 1975, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $33.02 to Rose's Supermarket in Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Quincy State Bank to pay same upon presentation. The check (#2) was returned marked insufficient funds and notices requesting payment were ignored. On or about June 14, 1975, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $35.00 to the Class of `65 in Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Lewis State Bank of Tallahassee to pay same upon presentation. The check was returned marked insufficient funds and notices requesting payment were ignored. On or about August 2, 1975, Doris J. Black was arrested and charged with two counts of uttering worthless checks. The Respondent posted a $25.00 bond on each count. The bonds were estreated on September 2, 1975. On or about January 26, 1976, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $45.65 to the Top Dollar Store in Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Lewis State Bank of Tallahassee to pay same upon presentation. The check (#150) was returned marked closed and notices requesting payment were ignored. Doris J. Black was arrested on February 19, 1976, and posted a bond in the amount of $40.00. The bond was estreated on March 1, 1976. On or about January 18, 1976, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $21.45 to Discount Grocery in Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Lewis State Bank of Tallahassee to pay same upon presentation. The check (#149) was returned marked closed and notices requesting payment were ignored. Doris J. Black was arrested on March 2, 1976, and charged with uttering a worthless check. She posted a $40.00 bond which was estreated on April 12, 1976. On or about December 23, 1977, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $29.04 to Top Dollar Store in Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Citizens Bank and Trust Company to pay same upon presentation. The check (#116) was returned marked insufficient funds and notices requesting payment were ignored. On or about December 29, 1977, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $32.84 to Auto Supply in Gadsden County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Citizens Bank and Trust Company to pay same upon presentation. The check (#117) was returned marked insufficient funds and notices requesting payment were ignored. On or about February 12, 1978, Doris J. Black was arrested and charged with two counts of uttering worthless checks. The respondent plead guilty on March 8, 1978, to both counts for which she was sentenced to one year's probation, ordered to make restitution and pay $75.00 court costs. On or about January 19, 1978, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $12.48 to the Yankee Peddlar in Leon County, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Quincy State Bank to pay same upon presentation. The charge was dismissed on April 18, 1974, on $40.00 court costs and restitution. On or about January 13, 1975, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $23.81 to the National Shirt Shop of Tallahassee, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Quincy State Bank to pay same upon presentation. The charge was dismissed on March 12, 1975, on $40.00 court costs and restitution. On or about November 18, 1974, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $13.28 to Millers of Tallahassee, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Quincy State Bank to pay same upon presentation. The charge was dismissed on $40.00 court costs and restitution on May 28, 1975. On or about August 1, 1975, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $14.00 to Ford's Shoe Store, Tallahassee, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Lewis State Bank of Tallahassee to pay same upon presentation Doris J. Black entered a plea of Nolo Contendere on November 26, 1975, and was found guilty. She was fined $15.00. On or about June 21, 1975, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $42.66 to K-Mart Store of Tallahassee, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check the maker did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Lewis State Bank of Tallahassee to pay same upon presentation. Doris J. Black entered a Plea of Nolo Contendere on November 26, 1975, and was found guilty. She was fined $15.00. On or about February 24, 1978, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $93.49 to Standard Sales of Tallahassee, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that she did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with Citizens Bank and Trust Company of Quincy to pay same upon presentation. On or about March 3, 1978, Doris J. Black presented a check in the amount of $109.24 to Standard Sales of Tallahassee, Florida, which the Respondent knew or should have known at the time of uttering such check that she did not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit with the Citizens Bank and Trust Company of Quincy to pay same upon presentation. On August 17, 1977, Respondent took unpurchased merchandise, to wit: three bottles of Charlie Cologne, one bottle of Musk, one bottle of Mink and Pearls, one bottle of British Sterling, one bottle of Old Spice Musk, one Moon Drops Body Oil, one Vigorol 8, one Afrosheen, from the premises of a mercantile establishment, Skaggs Albertsons, located at 1925 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida, with the intent to convert said merchandise to personal use without paying the purchase price. She was apprehended by the assistant store manager after placing the above-described articles in a straw bag and leaving the store with the articles which were valued at approximately $48.00. She was subsequently arrested and, on November 30, 1977, entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to the charge of petty theft. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and she was placed on thirty days probation by the County Court for Leon County, Florida. At the hearing, Respondent admitted taking the merchandise at the suggestion of a friend of hers whom she met while she was in the store. (Stipulation, Testimony of Giberson, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In the opinion of the Principal of George W. Monroe Elementary School, the Superintendent of Schools of Gadsden County, and the Chairman of the Gadsden County School Board, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Gadsden County school system had been reduced as a result of her past conduct. They were further of the opinion that her actions failed to set a proper example for students and was in violation of ethical standards of the teaching profession. The school principal has received approximately fifty telephone calls at the school in the past five years from Respondent's creditors and, on several occasions, individuals had come on to school premises to discuss delinquent obligations with the Respondent. (Testimony of Boyd, Greene, Bishop) In her testimony at the hearing, Respondent attributed her financial difficulties primarily to her ex-husband Matthew Tucker, whom she met in May, 1974, and married in October, 1974. She testified that she had given her paycheck to Tucker on various occasions to deposit in her bank account, but he failed to do so, thereby providing an insufficient balance when she wrote checks on the account. She maintained that he would come to the elementary school on payday and induce her to turn over her check to him, and that he would intercept her mail so that she was unable to become aware of the status of her account by mailed bank statements. She further testified that her husband had been violent on occasion and had assaulted her at which times she had called the local police for assistance. Although records of the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office and the Quincy Department of Public Safety failed to reveal that any such incidents had been reported, Respondent's testimony was corroborated in part by the testimony of a friend, Catherine James, who saw the Respondent on an unspecified occasion with bruises on her face. Mrs. James had loaned money to Respondent on several occasions and had given as reasons for the loans the fact that her husband had not deposited money or had taken money from her. Respondent's mother, Fanny Black, had loaned money to her and her husband on several occasions in the past. She was further aware that Respondent's husband frequented dog and race tracks where he gambled with money earned by the Respondent. Although the Respondent divorced Tucker in August, 1977, she later learned that she was pregnant and continued to live with him until April, 1978. (Testimony of Respondent, F. Black, James, Woodham, Beach)
Recommendation That the teaching certificate of Respondent be suspended for a period of one year, pursuant to Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luther C. Smith, Esquire Hugh Ingram, Administrator 121 1/2 South Monroe Street Professional Practices Council Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Department of Education Room 3, 318 W. Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent from work without pay and to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Richard Rahey “Respondent" or "Mr. Rahey" was employed by the Palm Beach County School District "Petitioner" or the “District” as a school monitor and behavior intervention associate at Benoist Farms Elementary School (Benoist) during the 2008-2009 school year. He also served as a parent liaison and the President of the Parent Teacher Organization (the "PTO"). In January 2009, District Police began an investigation of bank accounts associated with Benoist when a check that was sent by an organization that subsidizes after school care was not received by the director of Benoist's after school program. Detective Robert Walton found that the check in the amount of $2,314.47 was deposited in an account at a different bank from the one used for Benoist school accounts. Only Mr. Rahey had access to the other account called the "Benoist Farms Elementary PTO" account (the "PTO account"). When asked about the check intended for the after school program, Mr. Rahey said he found it in his school mailbox, so he deposited it. Detective Walton had investigated Mr. Rahey for PTO bank account irregularities in 2005. At that time, Mr. Rahey was an employee and PTO President at Seminole Trails Elementary School ("Seminole Trails"). Although the evidence was insufficient to refer the matter for criminal prosecution, Mr. Rahey was found to have failed "to safeguard money designated for children." A letter of reprimand dated June 15, 2005, warned him as follows: You are directed to familiarize yourself with the established procedures and protocol for handling funds and deposits. You are further reminded that the district's best practices with regard to the collection and deposit of money must be followed. You are advised that any future failure to follow the aforementioned direction will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Detective Walton had more reasons to investigate Mr. Rahey's finances further after finding in public records that Mr. Rahey's home was in foreclosure and that he had filed for bankruptcy. At Detective Walton's request, a subpoena was issued for records from the PTO account and from Mr. Rahey's personal bank account. A number of checks from the PTO account were written to Sam's Club, so Detective Walton requested and received an itemized printout of purchases made using a tax- exempt Benoist PTO Sam's Club membership. When Detective Walton examined the accounts and purchases, he found what appeared to be unauthorized and unexplained purchases, and checks made to cash that totaled in excess of $3,600.00 over a period of time from January 2008 to April 2009. When questioned in May 2009, Mr. Rahey told Detective Walton that he did not remember or was not sure about some of the purchases. He insisted, however, that they were legitimate expenditures for the school, but his records were insufficient to support his claims. Mr. Rahey only had his handwritten ledger to show the purposes of the expenditures. During the questioning, he also acknowledged that Detective Walton had told him in 2005 that the same kind of record-keeping was inadequate for a school organization. This time Detective Walton determined that there was sufficient evidence to refer the case for criminal prosecution.1 Dr. Ruth Ann Miller was the Principal at Benoist. Detective Walton questioned her about certain items, including a PTO account check written for a "microwave for Dr. Miller." Dr. Miller had not authorized Mr. Rahey to buy a microwave and did not have the microwave. When she confronted Mr. Rahey, he initially denied having used funds from the account for his personal use. The District provided Mr. Rahey a copy of the Detective Walton's investigative report and invited Mr. Rahey to attend a Pre-disciplinary Meeting that was held on October 2, 2009, which he did. At the meeting and during the hearing, Mr. Rahey admitted his mistakes, apologized, and blamed his actions on his difficult financial situation as a single parent whose former spouse had stopped paying child support. Superintendent Arthur C. Johnson, by letter dated February 12, 2010, notified Mr. Rahey that he would recommend to the Board at its meeting on March 3, 2010, that he be suspended without pay and that his employment be terminated. As grounds for his action, the Superintendent listed conversion of District funds and/or property, ethical misconduct, failure to exercise best professional judgment, failure to properly control District funds, falsification of documentation, and theft. The following specific policies and statutes were also cited: School Board Policies 1.013 - Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff; 2.32 - Personal Business on School Time; 2.16 - Fund Raising Activities by School; 3.27 - Suspension and Dismissal of Employees; and Florida Statutes Section 817.034(4)(a)3. - Organized Fraud; and Section 812.014 - Grand Theft. As a result of budget cuts at Benoist, Mr. Rahey transferred to Bear Lakes Middle School where he was employed as a school monitor until he was dismissed from employment in April 2010. He has continued to serve as a volunteer parent liaison and business partner coordinator at Bear Lakes Middle School where he has the full support of the principal, Dr. Anthony Lockhart. His effectiveness has been compromised. Dr. Lockhart, for example, monitors Mr. Rahey's activities to make sure that he does not handle any money. Although he has confessed to committing the violations of policy and the crimes as charged, Mr. Rahey maintains that his employment should not be terminated because he has done so many worthwhile things to assist the schools. He has increased the number of volunteers and business partners at Bear Lakes. He was instrumental in having one business partner donate $10,000.00 for computers. Over the ten years that he has worked for and volunteered in District schools, Mr. Rahey has received excellent evaluations. He has been volunteer of the year once and has been nominated employee of the year four times. Mr. Rahey helped solicit school supplies and uniforms for new students in the District who were evacuated from Haiti following the earthquake. He has received absolution from his church pastor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order that suspends Respondent from employment without pay and terminates his employment with the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 10th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the following facts are found: Respondent, Lloyd R. Day, has been employed by the Madison County School Board in the position of Finance Officer since May, 1971. He has been continuously employed in this position through a series of one-year contracts. On April 2, 1982, the School Board, upon recommendation of Petitioner, reemployed Respondent for the period commencing July 1, 1982, and continuing through June 30, 1983. Petitioner, Randall M. Buchanan, became Superintendent of Schools in Madison County in 1977. His duties are defined by law and rules promulgated by the School Board of Madison County. As part of his duties as Director of Finance, Respondent invested the idle funds of the Madison County District School Board following his employment in May, 1971, and continued to perform this function until approximately October, 1980. At the time Petitioner became Superintendent, he requested that employees write down their current duties to assist him in learning their functions. He retained this information in his own office files. This informal job description established that the finance officer was responsible for investment of all idle funds. Two other job descriptions for the position of finance officer also existed, one in the personnel office, which assigns responsibility for the investment of idle funds to the Finance Director, and one filed with the Public Employees Relations Commission, which does not include this specific function but contains an "other assigned duties" clause. The School Board has not adopted an official job description for the position of finance officer. This evidence, the testimony of Petitioner and Respondent, as well as the accepted practices within the school system established that Respondent was responsible for this function. He exercised his duty to invest idle funds of the Madison County District School Board from January, 1977, until approximately October, 1980, and did an excellent job investing during that period. His efforts enabled the Madison County District School Board to construct a half- million dollar football stadium with interest earned on such investment of idle funds in the Board's capital outlay account. During the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1979, and ending June 30, 1980 (1980 fiscal year), Respondent made 102 separate investments of idle School Board funds in certificates of deposit and repurchase agreements. As a result, the Madison County School Board earned interest income of $245,862.51. Respondent was criticized, however, in the audit report prepared by the Auditor General's Office for his investment practices during the 1980 fiscal year due to his failure to follow-up investments made by telephone with written confirmation or documentation. Respondent was so angered and upset with the auditor's criticism of the manner in which he made investments in the 1980 fiscal year that he told the auditor he would leave the School Board's funds in a passbook savings account rather than comply with the auditor's recommended investment procedures. With the exception of three certificates of deposit and one repurchase agreement, Respondent did in fact leave the funds in a passbook savings account at the Bank of Greenville, which paid a rate of 5.25 percent. As a result, interest income in the 1981 fiscal year (which ended June 30, 1981) totaled only $104,976.52, approximately $140,000.00 less than that which was earned in the 1980 fiscal year. In the report of the Auditor General for the 1981 fiscal year, the auditor noted on page 4, paragraph (13),that the Madison County District School Board lost approximately $92,000.00 in interest income as a result of failing to invest School Board funds in accordance with State Law. Section 236.24(2) , Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 1980, provides that a District School Board may invest funds not needed for immediate cash requirements in savings accounts only if the interest rate received is not less than prevailing US. Treasury Bill rates. Respondent was knowledgeable of that fact, having attended the Summer Conference of the Florida School Finance Officers Association in Orlando, Florida, in June, 1980. Following his return from that meeting, Respondent prepared a memorandum to Superintendent Buchanan dated July 8, 1980, in which he stated: At a meeting held in Orlando, Florida, by the Department of Education, recent legislation was discussed and explained to us. One Bill (CSSB 559)(Chapter 80-103, effective July 1, 1980) pertained to the subject of investment of public funds. The explanation given us at this meeting was that we are precluded from investing in time deposits unless the rate of return equals US. Treasury Bill rates. Respondent's memorandum went on to indicate that the Florida Bankers Association's interpretation of the new law was in agreement with that of the Department of Education. Respondent concluded his memorandum by stating "future investments must yield at least US. Treasury Bill rates or we must invest in US. Treasury Bills. By memorandum dated August 25, 1980, Respondent advised Superintendent Buchanan of the investment of School Board funds in two certificates of deposit. in addition, he advised the Superintendent that on August 25, 1980, he talked to personnel at the Department of Administration, Local Government Surplus Trust Fund, to request a quote on the amount of funds which he was putting up for bid. Respondent notes in his memorandum that when he received the response from the Local Government Surplus Trust Fund, they quoted rates substantially higher than the rates quoted by local banking institutions. Acting on this information, Respondent prepared an agenda item requesting that the Madison County District School Board authorize investments with the Local Government Surplus Trust Fund. At its meeting on September 4, 1980, Respondent appeared before the Board and explained the request to them. The Board voted to authorize investment of funds in the Local Government Surplus Trust Fund unless the Hoard obtain a rate of interest from a local banking institution of within one-half percent of that paid by the Fund. Although he received authorization by the Board on September 4, 1980, to invest funds with the Local Government Surplus Trust Fund, Respondent took no further action to initiate any such investments and, in fact, made no investments with the Fund until after the Madison County District School Board received the official audit report for the 1981 fiscal year from the Auditor General in June, 1982. Respondent claimed that the idle funds were not invested in other investment forms due to workload, lack of direction and a preexisting directive by the Petitioner not to place funds out of the county. These assertions are not credible and are rejected. Rather, Respondent left funds in passbook savings because of the audit criticism over his failure to confirm and document verbal fund transactions. Because of Respondent's failure to properly invest idle funds, the School Board lost approximately $92,000.00 in the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1981. Petitioner claimed that he was not aware of either the problem or its magnitude until after receipt of the final audit in June, 1982, one year later. However, in October, 1981, auditors from the Auditor General's Office met with Petitioner and Respondent and criticized the manner in which funds had been invested and the revenues received from such investments. The testimony of an employee of the Auditor General established that he told Petitioner of the problem and that he acknowledged it. In January, 1982, a second auditor meeting with the Petitioner took place, this time with School Board member Albert W. Waldrep present. Again, Petitioner was told of the problem and its magnitude in terms of dollars and cents. School Board member Claude Pickles, on his volition, met with representatives from the Auditor General's Office on January 26, 1982, and was similarly informed. Petitioner took no disciplinary action against Respondent until after the audit criticism was reported in the local newspaper in Madison County in June, 1982. In April, 1982, Petitioner had recommended the reemployment of Respondent and the School Board renewed his contract. At the time of Respondent's reemployment, the Superintendent and at least two of the five School Board members were aware of the audit criticism relating to the investment of funds. Still it was not until the newspaper reported the audit criticism that Petitioner or the School Board acted to discharge Respondent. There was no evidence of any prior disciplinary action against Respondent, nor had he ever received a written performance evaluation during his employment with the Madison County School Board.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent without pay for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John D. Carlson, Esquire 1030 E. Lafayette Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randall M. Buchanan, Superintendent Madison County School Board Madison, Florida 32340 =================================================================
The Issue This is a challenge to action of the Gilchrist County School Board in its act of abolishing the Petitioner's employment position with the School Board as Occupational Specialist. In particular, Petitioner alleges that this action constituted rule within the meaning of Section 120.-52(15), Florida Statutes. Further, it is alleged that that rule activity did not comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Finally, Petitioner claims that the rule enactment or activity was arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact The parties have agreed by stipulation in the course of this hearing that the entire record, to include testimony and exhibits presented in the companion case, Hazel Bowdoin v. School Board of Gilchrist County, Florida, D.O.A.H. Case No. 82-1375, becomes part of the record in this proceeding and may be utilized by the Hearing Officer in arriving at the decision in this cause. The parties have also stipulated to the standing of this Petitioner to challenge the alleged activity in the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist position as being a rule. The parties are satisfied on the subject of the notice of hearing as established in a stipulation entered into at hearing. In a concluding stipulation, the parties agree that the decision to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist held by the Petitioner was not a decision which complied with the formal rule-making procedures set forth in Section 120.54 Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the holder of a Rank III Teaching Certificate, issued by the State of Florida. The certification recognizes her as an Occupational Specialist. On July 8, 1974, she was granted a continuing contract of employment with the Gilchrist County School Board as an Occupational Specialist in the Trenton and Bell schools within the Gilchrist County School District. A copy of that contract may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. The contract by its terms states at Paragraph 9, "This contract shall not operate to prevent discontinuance of a position as provided by law." It is the discontinuance or abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist held by the Petitioner that occasioned the formal hearing in this cause. Since being granted the position of Occupational Specialist in permanent status, Petitioner has performed those duties described in the job description, a copy of which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Those functions include career planning for students, considering their personal problems, preparing them for assessment tests and the execution of job application forms. In the school year 1981-82, Petitioner worked three- fifths of her time in Trenton High School and two-fifths in Bell High School. In her capacity, Respondent considered her to be acting as the equivalent of a guidance counselor. She has never been certified by the State of Florida as a guidance counselor. Around the beginning of April 1982, the Superintendent of Schools in Gilchrist County, Ray Thomas, decided that the position of Occupational Specialist held by the Petitioner should be abolished. At that time, and at all relevant times, this position of Occupational Specialist was the only position of its type in the Gilchrist County School System. The basis for the abolition or discontinuation of the position concerned anticipated revenue shortfalls or budget inadequacy for the upcoming school year 1982-83, pursuant to information from persons within the State of Florida responsible for educational funding. In arriving at his decision, Thomas sought comment from Robert Ervin, the principal at Bell High School and James Surrency, the principal at Trenton High School. Ervin was asked if the guidance responsibility at Bell High School could best be achieved by the provision of a full-time guidance counselor. Thomas gave the impression to Surrency that the basis for requesting the discontinuation of the position of Occupational Specialist pertained to funding. No particulars were revealed to the principals on the question of the financial position of the school system facing the advent of the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, admitted into evidence, are the comments of the Trenton and Bell principals on the subject of the abolition of the position of Occupational Specialist. Ervin accepted the idea of abolishing the Occupational Specialist. Ervin accepted the idea of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position based upon his belief that a full-time guidance counselor would be provided to his school as contrasted to the half-time guidance counselor and two-fifths time work of the Petitioner during the school year 1981-82. In his remarks, Surrency indicates reconciliation to the idea of losing the three-fifths time that the Petitioner was spending at Trenton High; however, he indicates his preference to have the Occupational Specialist position remain if it could be afforded. In the school year 1981-82, Trenton had a full-time guidance counselor in addition to the work being done by the Petitioner. After receiving the comments of the principals and in keeping with his choice, the superintendent of schools wrote to the Petitioner on April 21, 1982, advising her that he would recommend to the School Board, effective the beginning of the school year 1982-83, that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled and offering Bowdoin a leave of absence without pay for one year. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. On April 22, 1982, the recommendation of the Superintendent was presented to the School Board and in the course of that meeting, the Petitioner was represented by counsel. Action on this recommendation by the superintendent was tabled. On May 3, 1982, the Superintendent wrote the School Board and modified his position on the question of Occupational Specialist from one recommending that the position of Occupational Specialist not be filled in 1982- 83 school year to one of recommending the discontinuance of the position for economic and curriculum reasons, stating that the duties of that position could be assumed or transferred to the guidance counselor at each school in Gilchrist County. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. On May 4, 1982, consideration was given to the suggestion of total abolishment of the position of Occupational Specialist and the School Board in a 3 to 2 vote determined to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. This action was in keeping with Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. Prior to the vote, no specific information was imparted by the Superintendent or other school officials as to the financial benefits to be derived from the action or effect of the abolishment in terms of curriculum changes. The school board simply accepted the Superintendent's word that it was necessary to abolish the position for financial reasons. (The Superintendent, since taking office in 1981, has abolished other positions within the-Gilchrist County School System, such as assistant principal at Trenton High School, general supervisor of instruction, food services supervisor, brick and block masonry teacher, librarian at Trenton High School and has left vacant teachers's aide positions.) At the May 4, 1982, meeting, Petitioner asked for and the Board agreed to afford a formal hearing to the Petitioner to challenge the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist position. Again, on June 1, 1982, a request was made in the Petitioner's behalf to have a grievance hearing before the board concerning the board's decision to abolish the job and it was determined that that grievance hearing should be held on July 6, 1982. On July 6, 1982, the Board requested the Superintendent to prepare a list of vacancies which Mrs. Bowdoin might be certified for, the salary schedules related to those positions, a list of programs offered other than K-12 and the state certification requirements for those positions and the name of those persons filling the positions at the time. On July 20, 1982, the Board considered the level III grievance of the Petitioner in the presence of the Petitioner's attorney on the topic of an alternative placement of the Petitioner and the salary associated with that placement. On August 3, 1982, the Board entered a written resolution of decision pertaining to the level III grievance pertaining to the Petitioner, a copy of that resolution being found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. In this resolution, the School Board properly identified that the Petitioner could not be placed as a guidance counselor in that she did not hold a master's degree required for such position. In lieu, of the position of Occupational Specialist which had been abolished by the School Board on May 4, 1982, by its August resolution, the Board offered the position of Teacher's Aide at Trenton Elementary School, with a substantial reduction in salary from approximately $15,000 a year to approximately $6,300 a year. This position of Teacher's Aide was reserved until August 16, 1982. Petitioner did not elect to accept the position of Teacher's Aide and has been unemployed since August 1982. In the course of an August 11, 1982 meeting, the Superintendent reported to the Board that the Petitioner had "responded" at a level IV grievance procedure. On August 31, 1982, the Board was asked to consider litigation which had been presented to it by the Superintendent. On September 2, 1982, in an Executive Board session of the School Board of Gilchrist County, discussion was made of certain civil litigation brought by Petitioner against the Board. On October 5, 1982, an update was given to the Board concerning that case of the Petitioner versus the Board. Another update was made on October 5, 1982. On December 7, 1982, the Board was made aware of the fact that the case was to be considered in arbitration. (Various minutes of School Board meetings as described in this paragraph are more completely set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 8, admitted into evidence.) The matter was presented before the American Arbitration Association and the Arbitrator in his report absolved the Board of any violation related to the job abolition. The copy of that report may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, admitted into evidence. The date of the report is July 21, 1983. As stated before, the Bell High School in 1982-83, employed a full-time guidance counselor in substitution for an approximately half-time guidance and two-fifths time from Bowdoin the prior year. The Trenton school went from a 1981-82 school year in which a full-time counselor and three-fifths of Bowdoin's time was devoted to counseling activities to a full-time counselor, an aide working two-thirds time mostly in a clerical capacity and some assistance by a vocational teacher in school year 1982-83. Had Bowdoin returned as an aide to the Trenton school in 1982-83, she would have been used in the guidance department in the same role as she had been given as Occupational Specialist. There was a revenue surplus left at the end of the 1982-83 school year and it was sufficient to have allowed the funding of the position of Occupational Specialist for the 1982-83 school year; however, that surplus was less than the 1981-82 school year by approximately $65,000. This funding difference in the face of providing essentially the same services in the school system, pointed out the more difficult economic circumstance that Thomas had made mention of in his initial decision to abolish the position of Occupational Specialist. In the 1982-83 Schools year, employees in the school system received salary increases. At the conclusion of the 1981-82 school year, there were approximately 900 students at the Trenton school which included grades K-12. According to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, excerpts from the standards of the Commission on Secondary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, schools of a population of 750-999 need two guidance professionals. Therefore, the reduction of one and three-fifths counselors in 1981-82 to one counselor and something less than three-fifths in 1982-83 was contrary to the statement of standards. This excerpt is at 4.10.0, Figure 1, minimum personnel requirements. Respondent replies to that assertion through its Exhibit No. 9, which are excerpts of the standards for unit schools by the Commission on Secondary Schools and Commission on Elementary Schools of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. At Page 9, 9.16.0-9.16.2, Respondent argues that one guidance counselor suffices for any school with a membership of 500 or more students up to 999 students. Without determining which of these guidelines related to accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is correct, it suffices to say that the changes that were made by the School Board in abolishing the position of Occupational Specialist as it might affect accreditation were made in good faith in that it can arguably be said that Trenton school, having 900 students, only needed one guidance counselor to meet conditions of accreditation. There were no curriculum changes made in the 1982-83 school year as a result of abolishing the Occupational Specialist position. There were curriculum changes but they were not the result of any influence provided by the abolishment of the Occupational Specialist job.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, began service with the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher in August, 1965. He was employed on annual contract for three school years until he was granted a continuing contract by the school board on July 23, 1968, as a teacher pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. After the execution of the continuing contract, Petitioner was assigned as coordinator of vocational education during the 1969-1970 school term but in addition to those duties, continued to teach five classes. As Petitioner was assigned additional duties by the Superintendent, his teaching duties were reduced. Starting in 1970 and continuing through 1973, though the continuing contract as a teacher had not been rescinded, Petitioner and the school board entered into annual contracts of employment in which Petitioner was assigned as Director of Vocational Education. On June 5, 1973, the parties entered into a second continuing contract which described Petitioner's duties as "Director of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education." At no time did Petitioner ever hold a contract as "principal" nor was he ever paid as such. His current Florida Teacher's Certificate shows him certified in, among other things, secondary administration and supervision. Both this contract and the 1968 continuing contract contained a provision that the school board was authorized, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools, to transfer and assign the Petitioner to a "similar position in any other school" in the district, provided that "the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be as heretofore set forth." From the time he was appointed director of VTAE until January, 1981, Petitioner served in that capacity. As director of VTAE, he considered his position as similar to that of a principal in that he reported directly to the Superintendent of Schools, he supervised the teachers who taught within his program (although he did not rate them) he was paid on the non- instructional salary schedule as is a principal he was responsible for the procurement of and administration of students including their promotion and graduation. Nonetheless, he was not classified as a principal, he served schools throughout the county, the teachers in the program were recruited from regular day teachers and additional personnel who taught only in the night program, and these teachers were rated by their day principal when appropriate. Consequently, his position as Director, VTAE, was not similar to that of a principal. At the time he left the job as Director, VTAE, to assume the office of Superintendent of Schools, he was paid a salary of $21,000.00 per year for a 12 month term and was on step 6 of the non-instructional salary schedule. He has never released the school board from the terms of the continuing contract. In January, 1981, Petitioner took office as Superintendent of Schools. At that time the function of Director, VTAE, was assigned to Ms. Scaff who subsequently also occupied several other positions within the school board system including instructional coordinator, secondary curriculum coordinator, community education director, law education director, and management information systems director. Ms. Scaff did not assume all those functions at one time. The job was built up over a period of years and while the duties changed, the title of Director, VTAE, did not. Ms. Scaff was paid as an instructional director on the non-instructional salary schedule. As Director, VTAE, Ms. Scaff, and Mr. Greene before her, occupied one of the director positions reflected in the directory of the School Board. The School Board uses the same contract form for directors and principals and the director is evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools as is a principal, but there are few other similarities between the function of principal and Director. Petitioner served as Superintendent of Schools from 1981 until November, 1984, when he was replaced as superintendent by Mr. Hinton. Several months before his term expired, in June, 1984, Petitioner recommended to the School Board that it appoint Ms. Scaff, who was at that time serving as, inter alia, Director, VTAE, to a two year contract in that position. This contract was approved by the School Board. Shortly after his defeat in the election, Petitioner allegedly told Mr. Hinton that he did not wish to displace anyone employed by the school system in order to enforce his return rights under the continuing contract he held. It was his position that he would accept a teaching position but at a salary level equivalent to that of an administrator until such time as an administrator's position within the system became open. At a special meeting of the School Board called by Petitioner on the last day of his term as superintendent, Mr. Greene nominated himself for the position as principal at NHE. This nomination, however, was tabled by the School Board upon advice of counsel so that an advisory opinion on it could be requested from the Florida Commission on Ethics. At this point it should be noted that though the position as Principal at NHE became vacant prior to Petitioner leaving his position as superintendent, he did not apply during the period that the·advertisement was open. The only person to do so was Harry Pennington who was subsequently placed in that position. When Mr. Hinton assumed the position of Superintendent of Schools, replacing Mr. Greene, he immediately assigned Petitioner to the position as teacher of business education. Mr. Greene accepted the assignment but requested that he be paid a salary equivalent to the 20th step on the salary schedule for the position of instructional director at a figure of $32,550.00 per year. The figure demanded by Petitioner was not paid, however. After conferring with the State Department of Education regarding the proposed salary for Petitioner, the School Board determined that since he held a continuing contract as a teacher, he would be employed at a salary based on the teacher position. He was given credit for four years of teaching service while serving as Superintendent of Schools which placed him at the 20 year service point. In addition, he was given credit for a master's degree and for teaching in his field of certification. His total salary, therefore, was set at $23,460.00 over a ten month term. Petitioner was not satisfied, especially since Mr. Pennington, who was serving as principal of NHE was receiving $28,100.00 per year based on a 12 month employment contract. On May 27, 1985 the school board rejected Mr. Greene's nomination of himself as principal at NHE. The board's rejection of Mr. Greene was based on the recommendation of Mr. Hinton who felt that Petitioner was not qualified for the position in that he did not hold certification in administration and supervision at the elementary level his contract was not for the position of principal he had no experience as principal or assistant principal he did not apply for the position when it was advertised and because counsel advised that filling the position based on self nomination might violate Florida law. Mr. Pennington on the other hand, was fully certified in administration and supervision for all grade levels involved at NHE. Other positions for which Respondent felt himself qualified came open during the 1984-1985 school year but he was not selected to fill any of them. Included in these were that of principal of Hamilton County High School and administrative assistant positions at both North Hamilton Elementary and South Hamilton Elementary. When Mr. Hinton took over as Superintendent of Schools, as a part of his management program and in an effort to correct what appeared to be a problem regarding the late payment of School Board obligations which existed when he took over, he recommended certain personnel changes including the creation of an office manager position. Mattie Fouraker, formerly the business education instructor at Hamilton High School, was appointed office manager to the School Board at a salary approximately equivalent to that she received as a teacher. It is to her vacant job as teacher of business education that Mr. Greene was assigned. Petitioner contends Ms. Fouraker was appointed to the position before it was ever officially created and approved by the School Board. Be that as it may, however, it becomes clear that the Superintendent of Schools intended that a problem be solved and to do so, created a position designed to correct it. He appointed Ms. Fouraker to the job on a temporary basis and as soon as the School Board met at the next scheduled meeting in December, 1984, it approved the position and confirmed Ms. Fouraker's assignment to it. This formal board action, however, served to increase her pay from that of a teacher at $23,460.00 per year to that of an administrative position at $29,700.00 per year and her position was changed from that of a 10 month to a 12 month employment, along with the benefits accruing thereto. Petitioner's salary as business education instructor was developed through a tailored formula developed with an intent to,-in the opinion of Mr. Hinton, put Mr. Greene in approximately the same position for the four years he was Superintendent of Schools. As was stated previously, Mr. Greene was given credit for his 16 years in the classroom plus his years of superintendent for a total of 20 years experience credit. Added to that was credit for a Master's degree and credit for teaching in his field of certification. When the $23,460.00 salary that was arrived at for this was compared to what it was anticipated he would have earned had he stayed as Director of VTAE, it was seen that had he remained in his position on the same salary schedule, he would have presumably earned $2,362.50 per month ($23,625.00 per 10 month school year) as an instructional director, Step 6. This is approximately $155.00 more over the school year. Had Petitioner been paid at the salary of an instructional support position, Step 6, the monthly salary would be slightly lower. It should be noted, however, that due to schedule changes during the period, this might not be a valid comparison. Positions within the school system are assigned by the Superintendent of schools on the nature of the position. Non- instructional personnel are assigned categories on the salary schedule based on an assessment of their qualifications and value to the system. Teachers, on the other hand, who are generally serving under contracts, are placed on the salary schedule consistent with the number of years experience they have plus certain other additions. It was Mr. Hinton's position that Mr. Greene should be paid as a teacher since he was serving as a teacher and once that decision was made, Mr. Greene was paid the highest amount that a person with his certificate and his experience and qualification could earn in that position. When the Florida Commission on Ethics issued its opinion on the question certified to it regarding Petitioner's recommending himself for the position of Principal of NHE, the opinion indicated the Commission could not conceive of how the Petitioner's actions in recommending himself for a position could not have constituted a misuse of public position. In other words, while not saying that it was, the Commission concluded that it probably was a violation. Thereafter, the School Board requested an Attorney General's opinion on whether a school superintendent may nominate himself for appointment of a principal. The opinion was not received as of the date of the hearing. Turning again to the issue of the function of Director of VTAE, the School Board contends that the function of Director has steadily expanded in scope. For example, Mr. Hinton urges that the work that Mr. Greene was doing as Director, VTAE prior to being elected superintendent now constitutes only 10 to 20% of the currently described duties of the position. The additional functions that Ms. Scaff performs, as described above, he contends, constitute more by far than that which Petitioner did when he held the job. In support of that position, Mr. Hinton refers to the organization and management study conducted in 1983 at the request of Petitioner when he was Superintendent of Schools. Among the pertinent recommendations of that study was the restructuring of the organization within the school district level. The position of Director, VTAE was not one of the three Director and five coordinator positions recommended by the study. Ms. Scaff indicates that when Petitioner was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent of schools, she indicated her willingness to step down from the position of Director, VTAE and return to classroom teaching. She does not consider the return to a position of teaching as a demotion nor does Ms. Fouraker. It should be noted, however, that both individuals received substantial increases in salary by virtue of their position changes under the Hinton administration. For example, Ms. Fouraker's promotion to the position of office manager carried a pay increase from $23,460.00 to $29,700.00 per year. Ms. Scaff now earns the same. Mr. Greene was at Step 6 on the non-instructional scale when he left the job of Director, VTAE. These scales were modified in the intervening years, and Ms. Fouraker traced Mr. Greene's position as Director, VTAE, to the new scale as if he had stayed in place. She placed him at Step 6 on the new scale at a salary of $28,350.00. Petitioner contends that he should be treated the same as Mr. Coe, Director of Personnel, who realized a large salary and step increase when the pay scales were changed. If this were done, and he was given an instructional director's position at step 20 on the non- instructional salary schedule, his salary would be $32,500.00. Subtracting that $28,350.00 from the $32,550.00 he says he should be earning, Mr. Greene indicates that he lost approximately $4,958.87 for the period starting November 20, 1984, when he began teaching, to the end of the school year. He further contends that his salary loss is continuing at the rate of $757.50 per month and in addition, he is also being deprived of other benefits of employment such as paid annual leave, sick leave, enhanced retirement benefits, and other like perquisites attached to a 12 month contract. Mr. Greene further contends that since he was involved in litigation with the school board concerning Mr. Coe's contract prior to his leaving the position of Superintendent of Schools, the School Board should have known of his entitlements under the continuing contract since it was shown that it had been established for assignments and transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Fred D. Greene, be assigned a non-principal supervisor/director position within the Hamilton County Schools as available that he be paid accordingly when performing in such a position but that he be denied adjustment for back pay and attorney's fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H POLLOCK 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 29th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Girtman 1030 East Lafayette, Suite 112 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul Hendrick, Esquire 111 South Central Avenue Suite 1 Jasper, FL 32052 Owen Hinton, Jr. Superintendent Hamilton County School Board P. O. Box 1059 Jasper, FL 32052 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX Ruling by the Hearing Officer as to the Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted* Accepted* Accepted* Accepted Accepted except as to the veracity of the reported comment of the School Board member Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted except as to comments of Ms. Scaff as to her being a principal and signing forms as such Accepted except for Petitioner's comment that he would receive temporary certificate for Elementary Ed principal and would obtain certification in grades K-6 without much problem Accepted Accepted Rejected as irrelevant Irrelevant as a finding of fact should be conclusion of law Accepted Accepted except as to last sentence which is irrelevant unnumbered between and 23 Rejected Rejected Rulings by the Hearing Officer as to Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact (Respondent failed to number paragraphs.) The unnumbered paragraphs are therefore treated in sequence and numbered herein for purposes of identification only. Paragraphs Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to substance Accepted Accepted Accepted except that acceptance of the position was not meant to be acquiesed in permanent assignment Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as it relates to teacher salaries only Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted as to the request made. As of the hearing, the opinion had not been received. It was not offered into evidence and though attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, was not considered Accepted Accepted Accepted except for the conclusion drawn in the last sentence which was not supported by evidence admitted. Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected. Position was held by Ms. Scaff who performed the same duties performed by Petitioner when he was the encumbent, in addition to additional duties which he did not *Petitioner's terms describing the personnel changes are not necessarily dispositive of the issue.
