The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, against teachers holding Florida educator's certificates. Respondent, who has no prior disciplinary history, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 709850, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2014. The Events The incident that gives rise to this proceeding occurred during the morning of April 8, 2011, at Dillard High School ("Dillard"), where Respondent has taught mathematics since 2004. At that time, Respondent was lecturing to his Algebra I honors class, which comprised approximately 15 students. During the lecture, one of the male students, 15-year- old D.P., took out his cell phone and viewed it, contrary to one of Respondent's classroom rules. Respondent immediately directed D.P. to put the phone away, and the student complied; a few moments later, however, D.P. again took out his phone, which resulted in the same reaction from Respondent. For reasons known only to D.P., he took out his phone a third time——conduct that prompted Respondent to confiscate the item. Later, during the same class period, D.P. inquired of Respondent as to when his phone would be returned. Respondent replied that the phone could be retrieved at the end of the day from Mr. Levinsky, one of Dillard's assistant principals. None too happy with this turn of events, D.P. stewed for several minutes, at which point he got up from his table and approached the front of the room, where Respondent was seated behind his desk. Suspecting that D.P. might attempt to recover the phone (which lay on Respondent's desk), Respondent picked it up. At that point, and in an audacious move, D.P. grabbed Respondent's cell phone off the desk and stated, in an angry tone, that he would return Respondent's phone when Respondent relinquished possession of his (D.P.'s). Understandably disinclined to negotiate, Respondent calmly directed D.P. to return his property. D.P. refused. Respondent again asked, to no avail, that D.P. place the phone on the desk. After a third request, which, like the others, went entirely unheeded, Respondent stood up, walked around his desk, positioned himself near D.P., and instructed D.P.——for the fourth time——to put down the phone. D.P. complied, only to pick up the phone once again just seconds later. (While doing so, D.P. remarked that he was not going to return Respondent's "mother-fucking phone.") It is at this point that the witness' accounts diverge: D.P. and student S.H. contend that Respondent reached out with one hand and, in an unprovoked act of violence, grabbed D.P. by the throat and pushed him backwards, which resulted in D.P. falling over several desks that had been placed together; students A.A., R.B., and A.P. claim that Respondent, without provocation, slammed D.P. onto the desks after taking hold of the student's throat; finally, Respondent asserts——as corroborated by student T.F.——that D.P. moved toward him in a threatening manner and that he (Respondent) simply defended himself5/ by extending his arm, which made contact with D.P.'s upper chest or neck area. Respondent and T.F. further testified that, as a result of the defensive contact, D.P. moved backward and either tripped or fell over the desks. Before the undersigned resolves the question of how D.P. wound up on the floor, a brief rehearsal of the relevant subsequent events is in order. Moments after the physical encounter, Respondent informed D.P., who was uninjured, that he intended to escort him to one of Dillard's administrators. Enraged, D.P. removed his shirt and followed Respondent into the hallway; as D.P. did so, he directed several vulgar threats toward Respondent, such as, "I'm going to fuck you up" and "I'm going to kill you." Moments later, Respondent encountered one of Dillard's security guards, Noel Buhagiar, from whom Respondent requested assistance. Mr. Buhagiar proceeded to restrain D.P., at which point Respondent made his way to school administration. Once in the front office, Respondent provided a brief description to Mr. Levinsky (as noted previously, an assistant principal) concerning his incident with D.P. Mr. Levinsky instructed Respondent to return to class and issue D.P. a referral. While en route to his classroom, Respondent walked by D.P., who, still restrained, repeated his earlier crude threats. From what can be gleaned from the record, D.P.'s behavior ultimately earned him a five-day suspension from school. Shortly after the incident, Respondent was questioned by Edward Jackson, a school resource officer assigned to Dillard. During the interview, Respondent explained that D.P. had approached him in a "fighter's stance" and that, as a result of this aggressive behavior, he feared for his safety and used an open hand (which made contact with D.P.'s neck) to ward D.P. away. Subsequently, Officer Jackson conducted an interview of D.P. in the presence of Mr. Levinsky and the student's father, during which D.P. provided a description of the incident that largely coincided with Respondent's version of events. These statements were credibly recounted during the final hearing by Officer Jackson, who testified: The child told me, in front of his father, and A.P. [Levinsky], that there was a conversation about a cell phone. He went to get his cell phone back, in an aggressive manner, and that's when [Respondent], fearing for his safety, extended his arms out, and I guess in such force, that he caused the student to fall over some chairs. I then asked, well, Mr. [Levinsky] asked the student, did at any time, did [Respondent] use his hand to choke, choke you. And D.P. answered, to the question, indicating that [Respondent] did not use his hands to choke him. And that was said in front of his father, and in front of Mr. Levinsky, so, there was no choke at all. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 173 (emphasis added). Upon the conclusion of his investigation, Officer Jackson charged D.P. with misdemeanor assault,6/ at which time the matter was forwarded to the State Attorney's Office.7/ Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner has failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of the Amended Administrative Complaint's principal allegation—— namely, that Respondent grabbed D.P. in a "choking manner and pushed him onto [a] desk." In so finding, the undersigned rejects the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses on this issue, which, for several reasons, is less persuasive than that of Respondent and T.F. First, had Respondent committed the act alleged, it is reasonable to expect that D.P. would have suffered some form of harm, particularly since Respondent, a football coach, outweighed D.P. by at least 608/ pounds. Yet, and as D.P. conceded during the final hearing, he sustained no marks, bruises, or injuries of any kind.9/ In addition, D.P.'s present description of the event is highly dubious in light of Officer Jackson's credible testimony, which establishes D.P.'s admission during the police interview that he (D.P.) had moved toward Respondent aggressively and that Respondent had merely extended his arm for protection. Finally, D.P.'s wholly outrageous conduct, both before and after the incident——taking Respondent's property and refusing to return it, removing his shirt, and threatening to "kill" Respondent——is far more suggestive of his culpability as the aggressor. Owing to the undersigned's crediting of Respondent's final-hearing testimony, it necessarily follows that Respondent's report of the incident to law enforcement, in which he claimed self-defense, was in no manner false or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 May, 2013.
The Issue Petitioner University of Florida seeks to terminate Respondent, pursuant to Rules 6C1-1.007, 6C1-1.008, 6C1-7.018, and 6C1-7.048, Florida Administrative Code, for conduct alleged as follows: Abusing the faculty member-student relationship; Fostering, by example, an environment in which substance abuse is promoted to students whom Respondent supervises; Creating a hostile learning environment; and Retaliation in the course of a sexual harassment investigation.
Findings Of Fact In order to resolve the legal issues herein, it is not necessary to relate all the evidence taken, to relate the stipulated facts verbatim, or to record the entire sequence of events and all the opinions various witnesses expressed of one another. Accordingly, and in accord with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, only material findings of fact have been made.3 In doing so, effort has been made to reconcile the witnesses' respective testimony so that all witnesses may be found to speak the truth, but where conflicts existed, the credibility issue has been resolved on the characteristics listed in Standard Jury Instruction, (Civil) 2.2b.4 Respondent was initially hired at UF on July 17, 1992, in a non-permanent position as a Research Scientist, at its main campus in Gainesville, Florida. Beginning April 1, 1997, and at all times material, Respondent was employed on the main campus as a non-permanent Assistant Professor in the Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences (IFAS), Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, at UF. As such, Respondent was assigned teaching, research, and extension duties that include teaching undergraduate and graduate courses and mentoring students. Respondent did not hold tenure, but was in a tenure-earning status for nine years. Respondent is an ichthyologist and was employed in the specialized academic field of wildlife conservation genetics, within a limited professional community comprised of only approximately 100 professionals in the United States. Students, graduate students, and colleagues of Respondent understand that this is a tight-knit professional community and that Dr. Robert Chapman of the University of Charleston, South Carolina, is part of that "elite 100." As with any profession, networking is important to students' career paths. Anna Bass was never a UF student or a student of Respondent. However, she was directly employed by UF from March 1995 to the summer of 2000, as Respondent's lab manager. She worked for Respondent elsewhere prior to that period and has known him since approximately 1992 or 1993. As Assistant Professor, Respondent served as the Major Professor and Thesis Committee Advisor for UF graduate students Joel Carlin, Alicia Pearce, and Luiz Rocha. Currently, and at all times material, Joel Carlin was enrolled as an IFAS graduate student at UF. Alicia Pearce graduated from the UF-IFAS program in May 2001. Katherine Moore was never Respondent's student and never attended UF. However, Respondent had been on Ms. Moore's graduate thesis committee when she was a student at the University of Charleston. She graduated from that university approximately 1998-1999. Ms. Moore has been employed as a biologist at the National Ocean Service in Charleston, South Carolina, since 1990. The student-professor relationship is based on mutual trust and respect, with the student's best interest at heart, for either undergraduate or graduate students. As major professor and chair of thesis committees, Respondent has substantial power over the career paths of graduate students he has advised. Major professors are expected to serve as mentors to their students, providing guidance and acting as professional role models to assist and mold judgment. They are relied upon by students and former students for future educational, job, and research grant references. The graduate student-major professor relationship persists beyond graduation and often endures for a life-time. Graduates often continue original research in cooperation with their mentors and co-author professional research articles with them. Graduates frequently seek the counsel of their mentors for important professional post-graduate decisions. Among his students and colleagues, Respondent has a reputation for partying. His liquor of choice is tequila. He has held what are called "late night lab sessions" with his graduate students in off-campus Gainesville music clubs and bars. Student attendance at these "late night lab sessions" are not required, but it is understood they can be helpful for building both rapport and a career. Respondent also entertains, as do other professors, by serving food and alcohol in his home, so that students may meet and network with visiting speakers/ colleagues in their chosen field(s). During a party hosted by Respondent at his home in May of 1997, he served and consumed beer and tequila in the presence of adult IFAS students. He became inebriated at that party. Respondent, Mr. Carlin, and a visiting scientist, met at a music club in Gainesville and drank alcohol together on one occasion. In early June 2001, Respondent attended an informal going-away party for the same colleague at a Gainesville restaurant with Mr. Carlin and Mr. Carlin's undergraduate girlfriend. Alcohol was consumed and at the end of the evening, the three felt too inebriated to drive legally or safely. However, Respondent drove home and did nothing to prevent the others from driving home. Respondent's explanation for this last occasion was that he was under great emotional stress due to his wife's recent miscarriage. Respondent has consumed alcoholic beverages at off- campus locations at least 3-4 times per year with adult IFAS students whom he academically supervised. In 1998, when Mr. Carlin, an adult, was interviewing on the UF Campus at a morning appointment with Respondent for admission to the UF graduate program, Respondent invited him to meet that night, at approximately 11:00 p.m., with Respondent and his graduate students in a Gainesville establishment where they consumed alcohol. Attendance at the bar was not a quid pro quo for admission, and Mr. Carlin never thought it was. Mr. Carlin remained for the meeting and drinking and was ultimately admitted into the program. Respondent considered his invitation to be a friendly opportunity for Mr. Carlin to talk informally with other graduate degree candidates so that all concerned could determine if the fit was right for Mr. Carlin in the program he wanted to pursue at UF. Mr. Carlin did not object to the drinking, but he felt the late night hour was inconvenient, since he had expected to leave town after his morning interview, and unprofessional, since he never got to discuss dissertation ideas at that time with Respondent. Once, when Respondent had been in Charleston, South Carolina, helping Ms. Moore "finish up [her] Masters," they were at a post-reception party in Respondent's motel room. Other guests were drinking alcohol and smoking pot (marijuana). Dr. Robert Chapman was also present. Respondent and Dr. Chapman settled which of their names should appear first on a jointly- authored professional publication with a "tequila bottle toss." Each professor-author tossed an empty tequila bottle into the motel swimming pool from the motel room balcony. The man whose bottle hit closest to the pool's center, won. The date of this event is not clear, but apparently it occurred while Respondent was employed by UF. There is no reason to suppose UF students were present. Respondent has possessed liquor at off-campus professional conferences in the presence of adult UF students for whom he had some academic responsibility. Several years ago, at a professional reception held for Respondent, he autographed the closure strap at the back of the bra worn by a non-UF undergraduate female, approximately nineteen years old, who was flirting with him in the presence of Ms. Moore. Ms. Moore described the young woman as someone attending her first professional conference who was in awe of Respondent as a "star" in their field. Respondent admitted to making sexually suggestive witticisms to the undergraduate female at the time. No one took him seriously or was offended. Respondent has repeatedly possessed or smoked marijuana, a controlled substance under Florida law, in the presence of others with whom he was professionally associated.5 Use or possession of marijuana on campus offends UF's "drug-free policy." Use or possession of marijuana by a UF faculty member or student anywhere is considered "disruptive behavior" subject to UF discipline. See Rules 6C1-1.008(1)(m) and 6C1-7.048(1)(n), Florida Administrative Code, and the following Conclusions of Law. In June 2001, Respondent used marijuana at Mr. Carlin's house with Mr. Carlin and Mr. Carlin's live-in undergraduate girlfriend present. Respondent's explanation for this was that he was under great emotional stress due to his wife's recent miscarriage. Ms. Moore has observed Respondent smoke marijuana in the presence of students at most of the off-campus professional meetings they have attended over the years from 1992 to the present, but the students she referred-to probably attended universities other than UF. Ms. Pearce has observed Respondent smoke marijuana in the presence of UF students approximately 15 times. She did not specify the locations as on- or off-campus. While she was his student and in his UF office, on the UF campus, Respondent showed Ms. Pearce a "highlighter" pen that he carried in his pocket, which pen had a false bottom for hiding a stash of marijuana. Ms. Bass has smoked marijuana with Petitioner multiple times. She did not specify the location(s) as on- or off- the UF campus. In July 2001, Alicia Pearce was 29 years old. During her UF graduate studies, Respondent had been her major professor and thesis committee advisor. She had received her Master's Degree diploma from UF on May 5, 2001, and UF could not require her to complete any further requirements. (See Finding of Fact 8.) However, according to Dr. Richard Jones, UF Dean of Research, it was expected that after award of their degrees, former graduate students would place their theses in reviewed (preferably peer-reviewed) publications. Respondent had agreed that Ms. Pearce could present her thesis after graduation, due to her relocation to North Carolina. In order to present her paper after graduation, Ms. Pearce submitted her research paper abstract and her registration papers and fees for the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) Conference in February, 2001, before her graduation from UF. The conference was scheduled to be held on July 5-10, 2001, at State College, Pennsylvania (Penn State). Respondent also attended the July 5-10, 2001, ASIH Conference in the capacity of a UF-IFAS faculty member to, among other purposes, mentor his graduate students, Pearce, Carlin, and Rocha, all of whom were presenting papers at the conference. Respondent was not required to request leave, and did not request leave, from UF to attend the conference. He was on salary from UF while at the conference. Respondent was entitled to request a travel reimbursement from UF, as did Mr. Carlin, but elected not to do so. Respondent has attended the ASIH Conference approximately four times while employed by UF-IFAS. At the 2001 ASIH Conference, Ms. Pearce roomed in a dorm with Luiz Rocha. On July 6, 2001, Respondent used his credit card to purchase dinner and alcoholic drinks at a restaurant/bar in the Penn State Conference Center Hotel for a group of adult colleagues and adult students, including Carlin, Pearce, and Rocha. The ASIH Conference was being held in the hotel. The hotel was considered part of the Penn State campus. During dinner, Respondent made a sexually suggestive comment to Ms. Pearce, who was the only female present, and remarked that it could not be sexual harassment because she was no longer his student. Neither Ms. Pearce nor anyone else took him seriously or was offended. After dinner, Petitioner invited Ms. Pearce to his hotel room, along with another senior colleague, to discuss a tip Respondent had received several weeks earlier that a UF student had fabricated research. Respondent wanted the senior colleague's advice. He wanted Ms. Pearce's perspective because she had been in the lab during a relevant period of time. Their conversation in Respondent's hotel room lasted about an hour. During this period of time, marijuana was present in Respondent's hotel room. Respondent did not admit to bringing the drug with him to the conference, but the fact that marijuana was present in Respondent's hotel room means the contraband drug was in his constructive possession. Respondent admitted holding, sniffing, and/or smoking6 a "token toke" in the hotel during the dates of the 2001 ASIH Conference, and apparently in the presence of Ms. Pearce and the adult colleague. Marijuana use or possession is contrary to Penn State University's drug-free policy and rules. Respondent, his colleague, and Ms. Pearce next attended the official conference reception downstairs in the hotel. Alcohol was served and consumed. Later the same evening, Respondent and Ms. Pearce returned to his hotel room. Both had already drunk a great deal of alcohol and proceeded to drink more. They were observed alone together in the hotel room by Mr. Carlin, whom they sent away. Ms. Pearce became further inebriated during a long conversation with Respondent, which included discussion of her fear of doing the professional presentation coming up at the conference, past lab work, and intimate details of their respective married lives. She then passed out in the bathroom. Respondent knew Ms. Pearce was already partially inebriated and vulnerable before he took her to his hotel room, because she had begun to cause a scene at the conference's reception. Respondent also knew she had a history of irresponsible behavior with regard to alcohol because in May 2000, she and Mr. Carlin, high on alcohol, had telephoned Respondent's home repeatedly at approximately 2:00 a.m., in the morning. They then drove, in that condition, to Anna Bass's house, where they "crashed" for the night. Thereafter, Respondent had told them he was distancing himself from them; told them they should never call him again at that hour; and gave them extra lab work. On July 6, 2001, Respondent assisted Ms. Pearce from the hotel bathroom into one of his hotel room beds. It is undisputed that the couple then kissed and groped each other. Respondent's and Ms. Pearce's versions of what happened next, or how long it took, are fairly similar. Where they differ, the undersigned has balanced Ms. Pearce's candor and demeanor or lack thereof while testifying, her past experiences with marijuana and excessive use of alcohol, her expressed intent to go to the ASIH Conference with the purpose of indulging in heavy drinking, and her inability to recall the evening's events in sequence or in detail, against Respondent's testimony, which is discredited in part by his prior inconsistent statements and admissions. Having assessed their respective versions, it is found that: Respondent removed or dislodged Ms. Pearce's shirt and bra. Their groping progressed to Respondent's massaging Ms. Pearce's breasts and the two of them mutually massaging each other's genitals. At that point, Respondent broke it off and removed himself from the bed. Ms. Pearce then turned over and passed out or went to sleep. Respondent then went to sleep in another bed. About 4:00 a.m., Ms. Pearce awoke, dressed, and left the room, but since the shuttle bus had left, she was unable to return to her dorm. Respondent followed her to the lobby. She wanted to know if they had had intercourse. Respondent felt he was very clear in stating that no intercourse had occurred. However, Respondent's answer seemed non-specific to Ms. Pearce and did not satisfy her that intercourse had not occurred. She was very concerned, because she and her husband had been trying to conceive a child. However, she allowed Respondent to persuade her to return to his room to talk until 7:00 a.m., when the shuttle began to run again, and she then left the hotel. Respondent explained the July 6, 2001, sexual incident with Ms. Pearce as his being emotionally unstable due to his wife's recent miscarriage. Ms. Pearce did not say anything more to Respondent about their sexual incident until later on July 7, 2001, when she asked him not to tell anybody. He agreed that there was "no use in other people getting hurt." They behaved normally to each other in public throughout the next several days and were not alone together. Respondent helped Ms. Pearce prepare to present her paper later that weekend, and she did well for her first presentation on July 10, 2001. She presented Respondent with an autographed copy of her completed thesis after her presentation. The dedication warmly expressed her thanks to him for his mentorship of her. On Tuesday, July 10, 2001, the last day of the conference, after her presentation, Ms. Pearce also filed a criminal complaint with the Penn State University Police Department, alleging Respondent had sexually assaulted her. Respondent was confronted by two police officers and questioned extensively. He cooperated and provided a statement and blood for a blood test. He was not arrested or charged. Back in Gainesville, Respondent spoke to Mr. Carlin by telephone on July 13, 2001. Upon Respondent's inquiry, Mr. Carlin stated that he had learned of the Penn State investigation from Ms. Pearce when he drove her to the airport on July 10, 2001. Both Respondent and Mr. Carlin agreed Mr. Carlin had no first-hand knowledge of the situation. Respondent advised Mr. Carlin to stay way clear of the situation. On Monday, July 16, 2001, Respondent again spoke with Mr. Carlin by telephone. On that date, Respondent told Mr. Carlin that Mr. Carlin's and Luiz Rocha's names had also been of interest to the Penn State Police. Because Respondent said, "How would you like to be accused of rape?" Mr. Carlin could have interpreted this conversation as a threat. He did not. On July 22, 2001, Dr. William Lindberg, Respondent's Department Chairman, submitted his evaluation of Respondent's academic performance for the 2000-2001 academic year, which rated Respondent as overall "exemplary." This was a precursor to Respondent's getting tenure. Dr. Lindberg did not know about the events of the 2001 ASIH Conference when he submitted the evaluation. It is undisputed that Respondent is a "star" in "the elite 100," has published widely, is a popular professor, and has obtained valuable research grants for UF. On July 23, 2001, Ms. Pearce filed a complaint regarding Respondent with UF-IFAS. It was categorized as "sexual harassment." The investigation was cloaked in confidentiality. At the time of his July 13 and 16, 2001, telephone conversations with Mr. Carlin, Respondent could not have known that UF would be investigating him. On August 6, 2001, Ms. Pearce was interviewed by the UF investigator. On or about August 6-8, 2001, Mr. Carlin was interviewed by, and/or provided chronological notes to, the UF investigator and Dr. Lindberg. On August 8, 2001, Ms. Moore was interviewed by the UF investigator and related the "signing of the bra strap" event. On August 16, 2001, Respondent met with Dean Cheek, Dean Jones, Chairman Lindberg, and the investigator. Respondent saw notes on, or was made aware of, all or some of the statements made by those interviewed. He was informed that he probably would be terminated. He also was instructed to be circumspect and respectful in dealing with the situation and potential witnesses. Respondent and Dr. Lindberg shared a car back to their department after this meeting. On the ride, Respondent asked Lindberg what he should do about the paper he was co- authoring with Pearce. Lindberg told him that if he did not have much invested in it, the high ground was to step away. Lindberg did not recall Respondent's also asking what he should do about papers he co-authored with Carlin and Moore. Mr. Carlin was interviewed by Dr. Lindberg and the investigator again after Respondent met with the Deans. At hearing, Ms. Pearce presented speculations, but no credible evidence, that Respondent had done, or planned to do, anything to her in retribution for her sexual harassment charge. As of the disputed-fact hearing, Respondent had not removed his name from their joint paper. On August 17, 2001, Respondent telephoned Ms. Moore and told her to remove his name from the publication they had recently co-authored and were preparing for publication. He asked her never to contact him again because it was painful for him to talk to someone who told stories about him and he was tired of her complaints about her employer, who was a friend of his. Ms. Moore considered Respondent's telephone call to constitute her "professional excommunication." Respondent's withdrawal of his authorship created an awkward situation for Ms. Moore that necessitated her sending a letter of explanation to the publisher to clarify that Respondent's withdrawal was not due to a disagreement regarding her research results. The paper will be published anyway. Ms. Moore contacted Chairman Lindberg on August 23, 2001, and complained about Respondent's action and expressed her fear of further professional reprisals from Respondent. Dr. Lindberg agreed that if the withdrawal of Respondent's name became an issue with the publisher, he would write to the publisher for Ms. Moore and explain the situation in general terms. On August 14, 2001, Anna Bass was interviewed by the UF investigator. On August 19, 2001, Ms. Bass sent an e-mail message to Mr. Carlin which amounted to a diatribe against him and Ms. Pearce for speaking to the UF investigator. On August 28, 2001, a Notice of Proposed Dismissal was issued against Respondent by UF. On September 14, 2001, after learning that Respondent's dismissal had been proposed, Ms. Bass contacted Chairman Lindberg and charged Mr. Carlin with sexual harassment against her which allegedly occurred more than a year previous, when he and Ms. Pearce "crashed" at her home. (See Finding of Fact 34.) Ms. Bass denied that Respondent put her up to filing these belated charges. Respondent denied asking anyone to retaliate against, or speak to, Mr. Carlin for the purpose of preventing or altering the information Mr. Carlin gave in interviews with the UF investigator or UF authorities or to discredit his information. Respondent further testified that he did not ask Dr. Robert Chapman to author any correspondence related to the investigation. However, he admitted discussing his situation under the sexual harassment charges with Dr. Chapman. Respondent had problems with Mr. Carlin previous to the current investigation. On one occasion, he had to request that Mr. Carlin not annoy his female lab assistant. Respondent had previously disciplined Mr. Carlin for making annoying late night telephone calls to Respondent's home. (See Finding of Fact 34.) At the 2001 ASIH Conference, Respondent had approached Mr. Carlin about whether Mr. Carlin wanted to remain in competition for the Stoye Award, because of some concerns over the eligibility of his research. Mr. Carlin and Respondent have different understandings of what was involved in this discussion, but Mr. Carlin did not remove his name and Respondent did not interfere with that choice. Mr. Carlin went on to win the prestigious award. Some other members of "the elite 100" had also had a problem with Mr. Carlin concerning access to a limited supply of endangered species samples he and another graduate student needed. Mr. Carlin and the other researcher were in a race to publish their respective dissertations first. Dr. Robert Chapman was aware of the controversy. On Friday, September 14, 2001, after hearing about Respondent's proposed dismissal from employment, Dr. Chapman and Respondent had a telephone conversation during which they discussed Mr. Carlin. Respondent expressed his frustration at the complaint filed by Ms. Pearce and accused her of "filing false claims" against him. Respondent stated that Ms. Moore had made an unflattering anecdote and "contributed a story that portrayed [Respondent] in a negative light." Respondent also stated that Mr. Carlin had alleged that Respondent had harassed him. Dr. Chapman was then critical of the "ethics" of Mr. Carlin and described him as "shiftless." On Friday, September 14, 2001, Dr. Chapman sent an e-mail message to Mr. Carlin expressing anger and shame and stating in part that, "I fear that your career is in severe jeopardy. No one I have talked to will hire you after this." These comments of Dr. Chapman were directed to the rare species sample controversy but mixed in with a diatribe about Respondent's situation, as if they were part of the same complaint. On Saturday, September 15, 2001, Dr. Chapman sent an e-mail message to Jimmy Cheek, UF-IFAS Dean of Academic Programs, accusing Mr. Carlin of aiding and abetting a shameful assault upon Respondent and questioning Mr. Carlin's "honor and integrity," referring to Mr. Carlin as "a slimy worm." In this same e-mail, Dr. Chapman stated that "Ms. Moore is a thief," and a radical feminist who was out to get Respondent. Apparently, Dr. Chapman sent a similar missive to Dean Jones. Respondent had provided the deans' names to Dr. Chapman and did not dissuade him from writing them. On Sunday, September 16, 2001, Dr. Chapman sent an e-mail message to Mr. Carlin, apologizing for writing him in anger but not for what he had written to him on September 14, 2001. He told Mr. Carlin that his "first allegiance is to the professor" and advised him that "[I]nterviews with administrators are not an obligation. You have the right to decline and only the courts can force it." Dr. Chapman also stated that Mr. Carlin should talk with Respondent "about whether he should continue to serve as your professor" and further advised him to "take a low profile." While stating he would not circulate rare species sample rumors beyond those persons who knew of the rare species sample controversy before, and that he would be professional if asked about Mr. Carlin's competence, Dr. Chapman also stated he would volunteer nothing for Mr. Carlin. Dr. Chapman is a former employment supervisor of Mr. Carlin who strongly recommended him for admission to UF's graduate school on December 16, 1997. Mr. Carlin now feels he is unable to list Dr. Chapman as a reference because he questions Mr. Carlin's intellect and moral character and will accordingly give Mr. Carlin bad references rather than good ones. Mr. Carlin has great concern that Respondent has ostracized and vilified him for his role in the UF complaint review process. Mr. Carlin informed Chairman Lindberg that he fears his career is over and he has lost his place in his chosen academic field. Mr. Carlin also speculates that Respondent will now attempt to have his Stoye Award revoked, but there is no evidence Respondent has made any move in that direction to date. After Mr. Carlin was interviewed in the complaint review process, Respondent substituted his name for Mr. Carlin's name as the "corresponding author" on one of their current joint research publications which had been pending since June. He did not remove Mr. Carlin's name as first author. Changing the name of the corresponding author is not an unusual occurrence with regard to academic publications. In this case, it may benefit Mr. Carlin in getting published, because Respondent is friends with the publisher. However, the effect of the name-switch is that Mr. Carlin has lost control over the correspondence, putting Respondent in a position to delay or take the publication out of sequence for printing, if he chooses to retaliate against Mr. Carlin. On September 18, 2001, a Predetermination Meeting was held at Respondent's request. On October 8, 2001, UF issued its decision to dismiss Respondent effective October 10, 2001. Even after termination, sometime in December, 2001, Respondent was cooperating with input for a second publication he and Mr. Carlin co-authored. He has, however, begun to investigate the data behind Ms. Pearce's and Mr. Carlin's papers presented at the 2001 ASIH Conference. According to Chairman Lindberg, who testified by deposition, Respondent breached his professional ethics and student mentoring responsibilities by his behavior at the ASIH conference with Ms. Pearce. According to Dean Jones, Respondent's conduct at the ASIH Conference was contrary to UF-IFAS expectations of a responsible faculty member's interactions with students and abused the faculty member-student relationship.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the University of Florida enter a final order ratifying its termination of Respondent effective October 10, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2002.
Findings Of Fact This matter concerns an incident which took place at Brownsville Junior High School on August 16, 1984, during the last week of the summer school session. The incident involved a female victim and several male students. It is undisputed that a sexual assault on a female student did take place. The only question involved here is what part, if any, the respondent played in this incident. The sexual assault was initiated by another male student, John Felder. Essentially, Felder pulled the victim, Nettie Thomas, into room 101 at the school. That room contained a television set which also served as a computer monitor. After the victim was pulled into room 101, various attempts were made to removed her clothing and she was fondled and touched by several male students. At one point during the victim's struggles, she was forced down on the teacher's desk and was held on top of the desk by her arms. While on the desk, she was assaulted by a male student who laid on top of her and made motions which simulated the motions made during sexual intercourse. At times, someone held his hand over her mouth so that she could not cry out for help. Additionally, during the time the incident occurred, the lights in the room were turned on and off on more than one occasion. The assault was stopped when the assistant principal walked up the hall to investigate the noises which were reported to be coming from room 101. The students involved in the assault fled the room. The assistant principal, Freddie Robinson, observed and identified five boys fleeing room 101. Specifically, he identified Darrien Byrd, John Felder, Anthony Dowdell, Richard Daniels and Vernon Clark. He didn't see Horne. The victim, Nettie Thomas, identified these same five, either in written or verbal statements made during the investigation of this incident. At no time did she name Borne in her statements. Nettie Thomas testified that Bennie Horne was one of the students who held her arms while she was being held on top of the teacher's desk. At hearing was the first time Thomas named Horne as having been present or involved in the incident. Robinson thought Horne was involved because one of the other boys said Horne was there. No evidence was presented which established Horne's presence and involvement except the victim's testimony. In resolving this apparent conflict between the testimony of the victim and her failure to name Horne previously, substantial weight is given to the written statement of the victim which was made shortly after the incident. The written report does not specifically name Bennie Horne. In light of this written statement and lack of direct or corroborative evidence of Horne's presence, and having judged the demeanor of the various witnesses, it is found that Bennie Horne did not hold the arms of the victim in order to restrain her on the desk during the sexual assault and was not shown to have been present at all. Bennie Horne had no record of misconduct at Brownsville Junior High School prior to this incident. He was not a disruptive student and his academic performance was satisfactory.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order returning Bennie Horne to the regular school program and reversing the determination that Horne be placed or retained in an educational alternative program. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Gloria Horne Parent of Bennie Horne 2631 N. W. 49th Street Miami, Florida 33142 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Ms. Maeva Hipps School Board Clerk School Hoard of Dade County 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132
The Issue The ultimate issue in the instant case is whether Respondent should be administratively reassigned to Petitioner's alternative education/disciplinary program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Norland Middle School is a public school operated by Petitioner. Respondent was previously a student at Norland Middle School. While a student at Norland Middle School, Respondent was involved in an incident in August, 1989, which caused Petitioner to initiate action to reassign him to the alternative education/disciplinary program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. Thereafter, in September, 1989, Respondent moved with his mother from Dade County to Broward County and enrolled at Hallandale High School, a school operated by the School District of Broward County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the instant proceedings on the ground that Respondent, as a resident of Broward County, is no longer subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Virginia Timmons 103 Northeast 185th Terrace Miami, Florida 33179 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Russell W. Wheatley, Assistant Superintendent Office of Alternative Education 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Lake County School Board Policy 2.71 as described in letters from the Lake County Superintendent of Schools dated January 2, 2007, and January 7, 2007, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Lake County is the corporate body politic responsible for the administration of schools within the Lake County School District. At all times material to this proceeding, Paul Ogles was employed as an English/speech teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School in the Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles, a Caucasian male, has been employed as a teacher for the District for nine years. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Bernetta McNealy, an African-American woman, was employed as a teacher at the Curtright Center of Eustis High School. Ms. McNealy's classroom is adjacent to Mr. Ogles' classroom. During the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Tess Rogers was an assistant principal at Eustis High School and one of Mr. Ogles' supervisors. Mr. Michael Elchenko was Principal at Eustis High School during this time, and Ms. Rebecca Nelsen was the Director of Compensation and Employee Relations for Lake County School District. Mr. Ogles' first teaching position was as a teaching assistant with Project Outward Bound at Morris Brown College, a historically black college in Atlanta, where he prepared high school students for college. Mr. Ogles returned to teaching twenty years later after running his own textbook company. Mr. Ogles has received excellent evaluations during his employment by the Lake County School District. Once a teacher receives a rating or twelve (the highest rating possible) for two consecutive years, the educator may choose to participate in a PG-13 Appraisal of Professional Growth/Career Development instead of receiving the normal educator evaluation. Mr. Ogles qualified for this type of evaluation and successfully participated in the PG-13 appraisal process for several years. Mr. Ogles has sponsored or assisted with many school organizations such as the Beta Club; the Chess Club; the Key Club; the High Q Club; and the Speech and Debate Club. He used personal funds to support the students' activities, including paying $300.00 to rent a bus so students could attend a competition. Mr. Ogles was one of two Team Leaders on campus and in that capacity worked with the assistant principal to try to upgrade the quality of the school and to increase interaction between students and teachers. He also volunteered for bus duty before and after school. While performing bus duty, it was often Mr. Ogles' responsibility to enforce the school's dress code as students arrived on campus. Eustis High School has a policy of prohibiting students from wearing clothing with symbols or messages that may be considered disruptive to the learning environment. Students are not necessarily disciplined for wearing such clothing, but are requested to remove the offensive clothing, turn it inside out so as to hide the offensive message, put other clothing on over it or call home to have alternate clothing provided. The Confederate flag is one such symbol that is not allowed to be displayed on clothing worn to school. Dixie Outfitters is a line of clothing that sometimes bears the Confederate flag. Mr. Ogles was aware that the school policy forbade the wearing of the Confederate flag and he often was involved in enforcing the policy against students wearing the symbol. On or about May 19, 2006, Mr. Ogles was using his computer to search for project ideas for the following year while his students were taking a test. He was looking at a website called www.cagle.com, a political website from which he has gotten cartoons in the past. Several cartoons from this website are posted in his classroom, and there was no evidence presented to indicate that anyone had ever complained about their display. While viewing the website, he saw a cartoon that depicted a Confederate flag. However, instead of the traditional "stars and bars," the cartoon showed black arms crossed, with stars imprinted on them. The hands were extended beyond the flag, with the wrists shackled. The cartoon was originally published in approximately 2000, as a means of protesting the consideration by several southern states to display the Confederate flag at state buildings. When Mr. Ogles first saw the cartoon, he thought that it was "strong art" depicting the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism. In between classes, he showed the cartoon to Ms. McNealy. He asked her if she was familiar with students wearing Dixie Outfitters clothing. She indicated she was not. He stated that perhaps this cartoon could be placed on a new line of clothing for black students to wear in response to the "heritage" argument white students used to defend the wearing of the Confederate flag. The conversation was very short, as the bell was ringing for the next class to begin. Ms. McNealy did not respond to Mr. Ogles or give him any indication that she was offended or bothered in any way. There is also no evidence that she ever discussed her feelings about the cartoon with Mr. Ogles at any later time. Mr. Ogles testified, and his testimony is credited, that he believed that because the cartoon advocated a position against the display of the Confederate flag, that it would support what he believed to be Ms. McNealy's position on this issue. It is his view that African-Americans have as much ownership of the Confederate flag as anyone else, and should be able to use the image to express their views. While Ms. McNealy did not tell Mr. Ogles that she was offended by the cartoon, she did make her feelings known to Ms. Rogers, the assistant principal and Michael Rivers, a guidance counselor at the Curtwright Center, almost immediately. Ms. Rogers is Caucasian and Mr. Rivers is African-American. Both found the cartoon to be offensive. After speaking with Ms. Rogers and Mr. Rivers, Ms. McNealy left campus for the day. About an hour after he showed Ms. McNealy the cartoon, he was asked to come to the office and was informed by Ms. Rogers and Mr. Jones, another administrator, that Ms. McNealy was upset about the cartoon and had left campus. Mr. Ogles did not realize that Ms. McNealy would be offended by the cartoon and had he realized she would be offended, he would not have shown it to her. On May 22, 2006, Mr. Elchenko, the Principal of Eustis High School received a written complaint from Ms. McNealy about Mr. Ogles' showing her the cartoon.1/ Mr. Elchenko determined Mr. Ogles' conduct to be unprofessional and issued a Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience (Appraisal II form) and Prescription/Assistance Form to Mr. Ogles. Both documents directed him to stop giving materials to co-workers that could be considered offensive. Mr. Ogles has complied with these directives. After Mr. Elchenko completed his investigation, Mr. Elchenko reported the allegations to the School Board's District office because he believed the allegations in Ms. McNealy's complaint rose to the level of racial harassment. Rebecca Nelsen conducted an investigation on behalf of the School District. Mr. Ogles was reassigned from his teaching position at Eustis High School to the County Copy Center by letter dated July 17, 2006, and remains in that placement today. Ms. Nelsen determined that Mr. Ogles' conduct created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment on the basis of race, which is prohibited by School Board policy. Ms. Nelsen recommended to the Superintendent that Mr. Ogles' employment be terminated. A separate investigation was conducted for the School Board by a private entity called the Robert Lewis Group. The findings and recommendations of that investigation are not part of this record. By letter from the Superintendent dated January 2, 2007, Mr. Ogles was suspended without pay for the period from January 8, 2007 through January 12, 2007, and was directed to receive cultural sensitivity training for violating School Policy 2.71. There is no evidence submitted to indicate that the Superintendent's decision was approved or ratified by the Lake County School Board. Mr. Ogles served his period of suspension and successfully completed cultural diversity training. Before this incident, Mr. Ogles had never been accused of making any appropriate racial remarks and was not considered to be a racist individual. He had expressed the view that racism should hold no place in education. His principal did not question his competence as an educator.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the charges against Respondent, and rescinding all discipline previously imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 670247 and has been employed in the Bay County School system for 10 years. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a teacher at A.D. Harris High School, an alternative school for students who have problems in main stream high schools in the Bay County School District. Respondent has received satisfactory evaluations with no areas requiring improvement during his eight-year tenure at the High School. M.M., a female student at A.D. Harris High School from eighth grade through twelfth grade, graduated from the high school in June of 1998. During her eleventh-grade year (school year 1996-1997), M.M. was in Respondent's first period media production class and also in his homeroom class. M.M. made good grades in the class and was not a disciplinary problem. Anita Goodman is the principal of A.D. Harris High School. Students frequently discuss their personal problems with teachers and Goodman has encouraged relationships of trust between students and teachers. She cautions teachers, however, to be careful in the course of such activity, particularly with regard to male teachers providing counsel to female students on a one-to-one basis since often any resulting accusations become a credibility issue of student versus teacher. Notwithstanding Goodman's advice, Respondent became the confidant of M.M. during the course of the school year. When M.M., who is white, initiated a discussion with Respondent concerning the difficulties of her relationships with the black boys she was dating, Respondent told her to try dating white boys since she was having trouble with the black male students. Some time later, allegations were made by M.M., to the effect that Respondent spoke with her on two occasions and made denigrating comments about her associations with black males. These allegations by M.M., surfaced weeks after the alleged occurrences and after referral of M.M.'s boyfriend, J.W., to the office by Respondent for fighting (a fact corroborated even by M.M.). Based upon her demeanor, M.M.'s testimony is not otherwise credited. Conversely, Respondent is the father of two adopted children of Korean lineage who socialize with black and white teenagers. Students of both races are jointly entertained in Respondent's home. Respondent has no history of using racially derogatory terms in school or at home.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Law Offices of Levine & Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 489 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
