The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maynard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Education (K-6) and a Master of Arts degree in Teaching (Special Education). Her prior teaching experience includes teaching in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Ms. Maynard began her employment with the School Board as a substitute teacher. She was a substitute teacher for approximately six years. In the Summer of 2004, Ms. Maynard was hired to teach at the Pompano Beach Elementary School (Pompano Beach Elementary). However, Pompano Beach Elementary had over-hired, and she was surplused-out to Cypress Elementary School (Cypress Elementary). For the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Maynard began at Cypress Elementary as a kindergarten teacher. For the 2005-2006 school year, Ms. Maynard was reassigned as an elementary teacher at Cypress Elementary. The parties agree that the relevant time period in the instant case is the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Ms. Maynard was an instructional employee, a third grade teacher, with the School Board at Cypress Elementary. On April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard received a written reprimand from Cypress Elementary's Assistant Principal, Barbara Castiglione (now, Barbara Castiglione-Rothman). The basis for the disciplinary action was Ms. Maynard's failure, twice, to comply with a directive from Ms. Castiglione--Ms. Maynard was requested to report to an academic meeting with Ms. Castiglione. Among other things, Ms. Maynard was advised that her failure to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. A copy of the written reprimand was provided to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard contended that she was not refusing to attend the meetings but wanted to meet with Ms. Castiglione when a witness of her own choosing could attend. Ms. Maynard wanted a witness to be present at the meetings because she viewed the meetings as disciplinary meetings even though Ms. Castiglione indicated that the meetings were not disciplinary meetings. Additionally, on April 7, 2006, Ms. Maynard made a written request for a transfer from Cypress Elementary. The type of transfer requested by Ms. Maynard was "Regular."2 Cypress Elementary's principal, Louise Portman, signed the request. The principal's signature, as well as the requester's signature, was required. No transfer occurred. PMPs During the 2006-2007 School Year Through School Board policy, implementing a Legislative mandate, all teachers at Cypress Elementary were required to develop an individualized progress monitoring plan (PMP) for each student, who was deficient in reading, in consultation with the student's parent(s). Data for the PMP were collected through reading assessments at the beginning of the school year to establish a student's reading level. The appropriate reading program for the student would be decided upon using the data. Also, who was going to teach the reading program would be decided. The PMP, among other things, identified the student's reading deficiency and set forth the plan to remediate the deficiency and enhance the student's achievement in reading, which included the proposed supplemental instruction services that would be provided to the student. PMPs were generated usually two to three weeks after the beginning of the school year. A copy of the PMP was provided to the student's parent(s). The PMP was referred to as a "living, fluid document." It was not unusual for PMPs to reflect interventions not being used at the time, i.e., it was permissible for PMPs to reflect interventions that were to be used during the school year. Further, the wording current on a PMP referred to interventions during the current school year, not necessarily at that time. PMPs were modified throughout the school year on an as needed basis depending upon a student's progress. On or about September 29, 2006, Ms. Portman advised Ms. Maynard that Ms. Maynard's PMPs must be deleted because the interventions listed on the PMPs were not on the Struggling Readers Chart and were, therefore, invalid. The Struggling Readers Chart was developed by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) and contained interventions approved by DOE. Cypress Elementary had a Reading Coach, Jennifer Murphins. Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, in order to delete the PMPs, a list of the students, who were on the PMPs, was needed so that Ms. Murphins could provide the names to the person in the school district who was authorized to delete the PMPs. Further, Ms. Murphins advised Ms. Maynard that, once the PMPs were deleted, Ms. Maynard could input valid interventions for the students. The School Board's Curriculum Administrator, Mark Quintana, Ph.D., was the person who was designated to delete PMPs. It was not unusual for Dr. Quintana to receive a telephone call from a school to delete information from PMPs-- the request must originate from the school. Ms. Maynard resisted the deletion of the PMPs and refused to delete them time and time again. She suggested, instead, not deleting the PMPs, but preparing updated PMPs and sending both to the students' parents. Her belief was that she could not put proposed interventions on the PMPs, but that she was required to only include interventions that were actually being used with the students at the time. Even though Ms. Maynard was advised by Ms. Portman that proposed interventions could be included on PMPs, Ms. Maynard still refused to provide Ms. Murphins with the list of the students. Furthermore, Ms. Maynard insisted that including interventions not yet provided, but to be provided, on the PMPs was contrary to Florida's Meta Consent Agreement. She had not read the Meta Consent Agreement and was unable to provide Ms. Portman with a provision of the Meta Consent Agreement that supported a contradiction. Ms. Portman directed Ms. Murphins to contact Dr. Quintana to delete the PMPs for Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Murphins did as she was directed. The PMPs were deleted. On or about October 5, 2006, Ms. Maynard notified Ms. Portman by email that a complaint against Ms. Portman was filed by her with DOE regarding, among other things, the changing of the PMPs and the denying to her students equal access to the reading curriculum and trained professionals. On or about October 30, 2006, Ms. Castiglione sent a directive by email to all teachers regarding, among other things, placing PMPs and letters to parents in the students' report card envelopes. Ms. Maynard refused to comply with Ms. Castiglione's directive because, among other things, the students' PMPs for Ms. Maynard had been deleted and to rewrite the PMPs with interventions that were not actually used by the students was considered falsifying legal documents by Ms. Maynard. On or about October 31, 2006, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard to rewrite the PMPs. Ms. Maynard continued to refuse to obey Ms. Portman's directive. Around November 2006, Ms. Maynard lodged "concerns" about Ms. Portman with the School Board's North Area Superintendent, Joanne Harrison, Ed.D., regarding the PMPs and the instruction of English Language Learners (ELL). Dr. Harrison requested Dr. Quintana and Sayra Hughes, Executive Director of Bilingual/Foreign Language/ESOL Education, to investigate the matter. Dr. Quintana investigated and prepared the report on the PMP concerns, which included findings by Dr. Quintana as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Ms. Hughes investigated and prepared the report on the ELL concerns, which included findings by Ms. Hughes as to Ms. Maynard's concerns. Dr. Harrison provided a copy of both reports to Ms. Maynard. Included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: (a) that a school's administration requesting the deletion of PMPs was appropriate; (b) that PMPs are intended to document support programming that was to occur during the school year; (c) that including a support program that was not initially implemented, but is currently being implemented, is appropriate; and (d) that the School Board should consider revising the parents' letter as to using the term "current" in that current could be interpreted to mean the present time. Also, included in the findings by Dr. Quintana were: the principal's direction to the teachers, as to the deadline for sending PMPs home by the first quarter report card, was equivalent to the School Board's deadline for sending PMPs home; (b) teacher signatures were not required on PMPs; (c) the principal has discretion as to whether to authorize the sending home of additional PMPs and, with the principal's consent, PMPs can be modified and sent home at any time throughout the school year; and (d) Ms. Maynard completed all of her students' PMPs. Ms. Maynard's concerns regarding ELLS were that Ms. Portman was denying ELLs equal access and had inappropriately adjusted Individual Reading Inventories (IRI) scores of ELLs. Ms. Hughes found that Ms. Maynard only had allegations or claims, but no documentation to substantiate the allegations or claims. As a result, Ms. Hughes concluded that Ms. Portman had committed no violations. As a result of the investigation by Dr. Quintana and Ms. Hughes, Dr. Harrison determined and advised Ms. Maynard, among other things, that no violations had been found in the areas of PMP process, management or implementation and students' equal access rights and that the investigation was officially closed and concluded. Further, Dr. Harrison advised Ms. Maynard that, should additional concerns arise, Ms. Portman, as Principal, was the first line of communication and that, if concerns or issues were not being resolved at the school level, the School Board had a process in place that was accessible. Ms. Maynard admits that she was not satisfied with the determination by Dr. Harrison. Ms. Maynard does not dispute that the deleting of the PMPs were directives from Ms. Portman and that Ms. Portman had the authority to give directives. Ms. Maynard disputes whether the directives were lawful directives and claims that to change the PMPs as directed would be falsifying the reading materials used by her students and, therefore, falsifying PMPs. A finding of fact is made that the directives were reasonable and lawful. Interaction with Students and Parents Ms. Maynard's class consisted of third graders. In addition to reading deficiencies indicated previously, some of her students also had behavioral issues. Ms. Maynard was heard by staff and teachers yelling at her students. For instance, the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein, heard Ms. Maynard yelling at her (Ms. Maynard's) students. The Media Center was across the hall from Ms. Maynard's classroom and had no doors. On one occasion, Ms. Goldstein was so concerned with the loudness of the yelling, she went to Ms. Maynard's room to determine whether something was wrong; Ms. Maynard assured her that nothing was wrong. Paraprofessionals working in the cafeteria have observed Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. Some teachers reported the yelling to Ms. Portman in writing. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist and Administrative Designee, Marjorie DiVeronica, complained to Ms. Portman in writing regarding Ms. Maynard yelling at her students. A Haitian student was in Ms. Maynard's class for approximately two weeks during the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. The student was not performing well in school. The student's father discussed the student's performance with Ms. Maynard. She indicated to the father that Ms. Portman's directives to teachers, regarding reading services, i.e., PMPs, had negatively impacted his son's performance. Ms. Maynard assisted the father in preparing a complaint with DOE, dated October 12, 2006, against Ms. Portman. Among other things, the complaint contained allegations against Ms. Portman regarding a denial of equal access to trained teachers and the reading curriculum in violation of Florida's Meta Consent Agreement and the Equal Education Opportunity Act. Ms. Portman was not aware that the parent had filed a complaint against her with DOE. Additionally, on October 16, 2006, Ms. Portman held a conference with the Haitian parent. Among other things, Ms. Portman discussed the reading services provided to the parent's child by Cypress Elementary. Ms. Portman provided a summary of the conference to Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard responded to Ms. Portman's summary on that same day. In Ms. Maynard's response, she indicated, among other things, that Ms. Portman did not give the Haitian parent accurate information regarding the child. Interaction with Staff (Non-Teachers) A system of awarding points to classes was established for the cafeteria at Cypress Elementary. A five-point system was established in which classes were given a maximum of five points daily. Classes entered in silence and departed in silence. Points were deducted if a class did not act appropriately. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that the five-point system encouraged appropriate conduct by students while they were in the cafeteria. The cafeteria was overseen by Leonor Williamson, who was an ESOL paraprofessional, due to her seniority. The paraprofessionals were responsible for the safety of the students while the students were in the cafeteria. The paraprofessionals implemented the five-point system and came to Ms. Williamson with any problems that they had involving the cafeteria. On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Maynard's students entered the cafeteria and were unruly. Ms. Williamson instructed the paraprofessional in charge of the section where the students were located to deduct a point from Ms. Maynard's class. Ms. Maynard was upset at Ms. Williamson's action and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson, demanding to know the basis for Ms. Williamson's action. Ms. Maynard would not cease complaining, so Ms. Williamson eventually walked away from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Williamson was required to oversee the safety of the students in the cafeteria and, in order to comply with this responsibility, she had to remove herself from the presence of Ms. Maynard. Ms. Maynard also complained to another teacher, who was attempting to leave the cafeteria with her own students. Additionally, the lunch period for each teacher's class is 30 minutes. On that same day, Ms. Maynard took her class from one section to another section in the cafeteria to serve ice cream to the students. As a result, Ms. Maynard surpassed her lunch period by approximately ten minutes and, at the same time, occupied another class' section. Ms. Williamson viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as unprofessional during the incident and as abusing the scheduled time for lunch. On or about December 12, 2006, Ms. Williamson notified Ms. Portman about the incidents and requested Ms. Portman to remind Ms. Maynard of the cafeteria workers' responsibility to the students and the lunch period set-aside for each class. The incident on or about December 11, 2006, was not the first time that Ms. Williamson had instructed paraprofessionals to deduct points from Ms. Maynard's class. Each time points were deducted, Ms. Maynard became upset and loudly expressed her displeasure to Ms. Williamson. Ms. Williamson felt intimidated by Ms. Maynard. Also, paraprofessionals had deducted points from Ms. Maynard's class on their own accord without being directed to do so by Ms. Williamson. Whenever the deductions occurred, Ms. Maynard expressed her displeasure with the paraprofessionals' actions and often yelled at them in the presence of students and teachers. Another cafeteria situation occurred in December 2006. A paraprofessional, who was in charge of the section where Ms. Maynard's students ate lunch, observed some of the students not conducting themselves appropriately. The paraprofessional decided to deduct one point from Ms. Maynard's class and to indicate to Ms. Maynard why the point was deducted. Furthermore, the paraprofessional decided that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. Upon becoming aware of the incident, Ms. Maynard, who did not witness the conduct, wrote disciplinary referrals on the students involved and submitted them to Ms. Castiglione. The policy was that a referral could be written only by the staff person who observed the incident. Ms. Castiglione discussed the incident with the paraprofessional who indicated to Ms. Castiglione that the conduct did not warrant a disciplinary referral. As a result, Ms. Castiglione advised Ms. Maynard that, based upon the paraprofessional's decision and since Ms. Maynard did not witness the incident, Ms. Maynard's referrals would not be accepted and the matter was closed. Ms. Maynard did not agree with the paraprofessional's decision. Ms. Maynard approached the paraprofessional with disciplinary referrals on the students and presented the referrals and strongly encouraged the paraprofessional to sign the referrals. The paraprofessional refused to sign the referrals. Interaction with Staff (Teachers and Administrators) Safety procedures for the Media Center were established by the Media Specialist, Yvonne "Bonnie" Goldstein. At one point in time, Ms. Maynard wanted to bring all of her students to Distance Learning. Because of safety concerns, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that all of her students could not attend at the same time. However, Ms. Maynard brought all of her students anyway. Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to preclude Ms. Maynard from entering the Media Center. Additionally, at another point in time, Ms. Maynard requested, by email, that Ms. Goldstein provide all of her (Ms. Maynard's) students with New Testament Bibles. That same day, Ms. Goldstein advised Ms. Maynard that only two Bibles were in the Media Center and, therefore, the request could not be complied with. Disregarding Ms. Goldstein's reply, Ms. Maynard sent her students to the Media Center that same day in twos and threes, requesting the New Testament Bibles. When the two Bibles on-hand were checked-out, Ms. Goldstein had no choice but to offer the students alternative religious material. During 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Terri Vaughn was the Team Leader of the third grade class. As Team Leader, Ms. Vaughn's responsibilities included being a liaison between team members and the administration at Cypress Elementary. Ms. Vaughn's personality is to avoid confrontation. Ms. Vaughn had an agenda for each team meeting. During team meetings, Ms. Maynard would deviate from the agenda and discuss matters of her own personal interest, resulting in the agenda not being completed. Also, Ms. Maynard would occasionally monopolize team meetings. Additionally, in team meetings, Ms. Maynard would indicate that she would discuss a problem student with parents who were not the student's parents. As time progressed, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would engage in outbursts. She would become emotional on matters and raise her voice to the point of yelling. Also, it was not uncommon for Ms. Maynard to point her finger when she became emotional. At times, Ms. Maynard would have to leave the meetings and return because she had begun to cry. Additionally, at times after an outburst, Ms. Maynard would appear as if nothing had happened. Further, during team meetings, Ms. Maynard would excessively raise the subject of PMPs and accuse Ms. Portman of directing her to falsify PMPs or Title I documents. Ms. Vaughn did not report Ms. Maynard's conduct at team meetings to Ms. Portman. However, a written request by a majority of the team members, who believed that the team meetings had become stressful, made a request to the administration of Cypress Elementary for a member of the administration to attend team meetings; their hope was that an administrator's presence would cause Ms. Maynard to become calmer during the team meetings. An administrator began to attend team meetings. Marjorie DiVeronica, an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Specialist, was an administrative designee, and Ms. Portman designated Ms. DiVeronica to attend the team meetings. Ms. DiVeronica would take notes, try to keep meetings moving, and report to Ms. Portman what was observed. Discussions were stopped by Ms. DiVeronica, and she would redirect the meetings to return to the agenda. Even with Ms. DiVeronica's presence, Ms. Maynard would raise her voice. At one team meeting attended by Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard would not stop talking and the agenda could not move. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to stop talking, but Ms. Maynard would not stop. Ms. Portman placed herself in close proximity to Ms. Maynard in order to defuse the situation and raised her voice in order to get Ms. Maynard's attention. Ms. Portman dismissed the meeting. Additionally, at a team meeting, Ms. Maynard had become emotional. Ms. Castiglione was in attendance at that meeting. Ms. Maynard raised her voice and was shouting and yelling and pointing her finger at Ms. Castiglione. Ms. Maynard continued her conduct at the team meetings no matter whether Ms. Portman, Ms. Castiglione, or Ms. DiVeronica attended the meetings. Outside of team meetings, Ms. Vaughn reached the point that she avoided contact with Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's constantly complaining of matters that were of her (Ms. Maynard's) own personal interest, which resulted in long conversations. Ms. Vaughn's classroom was next to Ms. Maynard's classroom. A closet, with a desk in it, was in Ms. Vaughn's room. At least two or three times, in order to complete some work, Ms. Vaughn went into the closet and closed the door. Another team member, Elizabeth Kane, also made attempts to avoid Ms. Maynard. Ms. Kane viewed Ms. Maynard as making the team meetings stressful. Also, Ms. Kane was uncomfortable around Ms. Maynard due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and, furthermore, felt threatened by Ms. Maynard when Ms. Maynard became agitated. Additionally, Ms. Kane made a concerted effort to avoid Ms. Maynard outside of team meetings. Ms. Kane would "duck" into another teacher's classroom or into a stall in the bathroom to avoid Ms. Maynard. Barbara Young, a team member, tried to be someone to whom Ms. Maynard could come to talk. Ms. Young was never afraid of or felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Further, regarding the cafeteria incident in December 2006, which Ms. Maynard did not witness, Ms. Maynard did not allow the incident to end with Ms. Castiglione's determination to agree with the paraprofessional's decision to not issue disciplinary referrals. Ms. Maynard, firmly believing that Ms. Castiglione's action was unfair, openly disagreed with the decision in the presence her (Ms. Maynard's) students and strongly encouraged some of the students to go to Ms. Castiglione and protest Ms. Castiglione's determination. Some of the students went to Ms. Castiglione regarding her disciplinary determination. Ms. Castiglione explained her determination to the students, including the process and the reasoning why she did what she did. The students were satisfied with the determination after hearing Ms. Castiglione's explanation. Further, the students indicated to Ms. Castiglione that they had no desire to go to her, but Ms. Maynard wanted them to do it. Ms. Maynard's action had undermined Ms. Castiglione's authority with the students. LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard or viewed Ms. Maynard as being hostile towards her. However, Ms. Maynard did make her feel uncomfortable. A second grade teacher, Paja Rafferty, never felt threatened by Ms. Maynard. Excessive Emails Communication thru emails is the standard operating procedure at Cypress Elementary. However, Ms. Maynard engaged in excessive emails. Ms. Maynard's emails were on relevant areas. However, she would not only send the email to the staff member, whether teacher or administrator, who could directly respond to her, but would copy every teacher and administrator. This process and procedure used by Ms. Maynard resulted in massive emails being sent to staff who might or might not have an interest in the subject matter. One such staff person, who took action to stop receiving the emails, was Ms. Kane. Ms. Kane was inundated with Ms. Maynard's emails regarding matters on which Ms. Kane had no interest or concern. To stop receiving the emails, Ms. Kane sent Ms. Maynard an email, twice, requesting that Ms. Maynard remove her (Ms. Kane) from the copy list. However, Ms. Maynard did not do so. Due to the massive number of emails sent to Ms. Portman by Ms. Maynard, a significant portion of Ms. Portman's time was devoted to responding to the emails. Ms. Portman had less and less time to devote to her responsibilities as principal of Cypress Elementary. Eventually, Ms. Portman was forced to curtail Ms. Maynard's emails. None of Ms. Maynard's emails threatened teachers, staff, or students. Additional Directives During the time period regarding the PMPs, Ms. Portman became concerned that the parents of Ms. Maynard's students were being misinformed by Ms. Maynard as to the students' performance and as to Cypress Elementary and Ms. Portman addressing the students' performance. On November 3, 2006, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard. Also, in attendance were Ms. Castiglione and Patricia Costigan, Broward Teachers Union (BTU) Steward. During the meeting, among other things, Ms. Portman directed Ms. Maynard not to have conferences with a parent unless an administrator was present, either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione, in order to assure that parents were not misinformed. A summary of the meeting was prepared on November 6, 2006. A copy of the summary was provided to Ms. Maynard and Ms. Costigan. Subsequently, Ms. Portman received a letter from a parent dated December 20, 2006. The parent stated, among other things, that the parent had approximately a two-hour telephone conversation, during the evening of December 19, 2006, with Ms. Maynard about the parent's child, who was a student in Ms. Maynard's class. Further, the parent stated that her son was referred to by Ms. Maynard as a "fly on manure." Even though Ms. Maynard denies some of the statements attributed to her by the parent and the time span of the telephone conversation, she does not deny that she had the telephone conversation with the parent. On December 20, 2006, Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione went to Ms. Maynard's classroom to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive. Ms Maynard was not in her classroom but was in another teacher's room, Barbara Young, with another teacher. Ms. Portman requested Ms. Maynard to come into Ms. Maynard's classroom so that she and Ms. Castiglione could talk with Ms. Maynard out of the presence of the other teachers. Ms. Maynard refused to leave Ms. Young's classroom indicating that whatever had to be said could be said in front of everyone, in front of witnesses. Ms. Portman, complying with Ms. Maynard's request, proceeded to remind Ms. Maynard of the directive to not conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Maynard became very agitated and yelled at them, indicating that she (Ms. Maynard) wanted what was said in writing and that she (Ms. Maynard) was not going to comply with the directive. Shortly before Winter break, on or about December 21, 2006, in the morning, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 10, 2006, regarding insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all contact with parents" until the meeting was held. Later in the afternoon, after the administrative office was closed, Ms. Maynard returned to Ms. Portman's office. Ms. Maynard confronted Ms. Portman and Ms. Castiglione about the notice, wanting to know what it was all about. Ms. Maynard was very agitated and emotional, raising her voice and pointing her finger. Ms. Portman indicated to Ms. Maynard that the requirement was only to provide the notice, with the meeting to be held later. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard several times to leave because the office was closed; Ms. Maynard finally left. After Ms. Maynard left Ms. Portman's office, Ms. Portman could hear Ms. Maynard talking to other staff. Ms. Portman was very concerned due to Ms. Maynard's agitation and conduct. Ms. Portman contacted the School Board's Professional Standards as to what to do and was told to request all employees, except day care, to leave. Ms. Portman did as she was instructed by Professional Standards, getting on the intercom system and requesting all employees, except for day care, to leave, not giving the employees the actual reason why they were required to leave. Unbeknownst to Ms. Portman, Ms. Maynard had departed Cypress Elementary before she (Ms. Portman) instructed the employees to leave. Regarding the afternoon incident, Ms. Maynard felt "helpless" at that point. She had been informed by Professional Standards to go to administration at Cypress Elementary with her concerns, who was Ms. Portman. Ms. Maynard viewed Ms. Portman as the offender, and, therefore, she was being told to go to offender to have her concerns addressed. On January 9, 2007, a Child Study Team (CST) meeting was convened to address the academic performance of a few of Ms. Maynard's students. Ms. Maynard had referred the students to the CST. The CST's purpose was to provide support for the student and the teacher by problem-solving, using empirical data to assist with and improve a child's academic performance and behavior, and making recommendations. No individual member can override a team's recommendation, only a principal could do that. On January 9, 2007, the CST members included, among others, Ms. DiVeronica, who was the CST's leader; Miriam Kassof, School Board Psychologist; and LaShawn Smith-Settles, Cypress Elementary's Guidance Counselor. Also, in attendance were Ms. Maynard and Ms. Castiglione, who, at that time, was an Intern Principal. During the course of the meeting, Ms. Maynard diverted the discussion from the purpose of the meeting to her wanting two of the students removed from her class. She began discussing the safety of the other students in the class, which was viewed, at first, as being well-meaning, however, when she insisted on the removal of the two students, she became highly emotional, stood-up, and was yelling. Members of the CST team attempted to de-escalate the situation, but Ms. Maynard was not willing to engage in problem solving and her actions were counterproductive. Due to Ms. Maynard's constant insistence on discussing the removal of the students from her class, the CST was not able to meet its purpose within the time period set- aside for the meeting. However, before the CST meeting ended, one of the recommendations made was for Ms. Maynard to collect daily anecdotal behavioral notes regarding one of the students and for the behavioral notes to be sent home to the student's parent. Ms. Castiglione gave Ms. Maynard a directive that, before the behavioral notes were sent home to the parent, the behavioral notes were to be forwarded to Ms. Castiglione for review and approval. Ms. Maynard resisted preparing behavioral notes, expressing that that plan of action would not help the situation. The CST members viewed Ms. Maynard's conduct as being unproductive, inappropriate, and unprofessional. On January 10, 2007, a pre-disciplinary meeting was held regarding Ms. Portman considering disciplinary action against Ms. Maynard for insubordination. Attendees at the meeting included Ms. Portman; Ms. Castiglione (at that time Intern Principal); Ms. Maynard; Jacquelyn Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Andrew David, Attorney for Ms. Maynard. The basis for the insubordination was Ms. Maynard's refusal to comply with Ms. Portman's directive for Ms. Maynard not to conference with parents unless an administrator was present. Ms. Portman pointed out that Ms. Maynard had a telephone conversation with a parent, regarding the parent's child, on December 19, 2006, without an administrator being present and showed Ms. Maynard the letter written by the parent to Ms. Portman, dated December 20, 2006. Ms. Maynard admitted only that she had the telephone conversation. Ms. Portman asked Ms. Maynard to provide a compelling reason as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken; Ms. Maynard did not respond. Ms. Portman reiterated the directive and advised Ms. Maynard that a letter of reprimand would be issued. A summary of the pre-disciplinary meeting was prepared. Ms. Maynard was provided a copy of the summary. On January 17, 2007, a written reprimand was issued by Ms. Portman against Ms. Maynard for failure to adhere to the administrative directive of not having a parent conference unless an administrator was present. The written reprimand stated, among other things, that Ms. Maynard had a parent's conference on the telephone with a student's parent without an administrator being present and that Ms. Maynard failed to present a compelling reason as to why no disciplinary action should be taken. Furthermore, the written reprimand advised Ms. Maynard that any further failure to perform consistent with the standards established for the effective and productive performance of her job duties, as a third grade teacher, would result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination of employment. Ms. Maynard received a copy of the written reprimand. After the Written Reprimand of January 17, 2007 Also, on January 17, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting with Ms. Maynard which was not a disciplinary meeting, but was a meeting for Ms. Portman to discuss her concerns and job expectations with Ms. Maynard. In addition to Ms. Portman and Ms. Maynard, attendees at the meeting included Ms. Castiglione; Jacqueline Haywood, Area Director; Cathy Kirk, Human Resources; and Mary Rutland, BTU Steward. Ms. Portman discussed five concerns and issued five directives. The first concern of Ms. Portman was Ms. Maynard's unprofessional behavior. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (b) yelling at administrators, referencing the incident on December 20, 2006; and (c) continuing to publicly accuse Cypress Elementary's administrators of falsifying documents after an investigation had determined the accusation to be unfounded. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Ms. Portman's second concern was unprofessional and inappropriate comments. The examples provided by Ms. Portman were Ms. Maynard's (a) indicating on December 20, 2006, while she was in Ms. Young's room, that she would not comply with the directives of which she was reminded by Ms. Portman; (b) speaking to a parent and referring to the parent's child as a "fly on manure"; and (c) telling parents, during conferences, that there was a problem at Cypress Elementary. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was to cease and desist all unprofessional and inappropriate comments. Additionally, Ms. Portman reminded Ms. Maynard that all notes were required to be submitted to administration for review no later than 1:00 p.m., except for student daily behavioral notes, which were to be submitted at 1:30 p.m. The third concern of Ms. Portman was continued dialogue of PMPs and ESOL issues. Ms. Portman indicated that the district had reviewed Ms. Maynard's issues and concerns and had responded to them. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that the said issues were considered closed and that, if Ms. Maynard wished to pursue the said issues, she should contact her attorney. Ms. Portman's fourth concern was unmanageable emails sent by Ms. Maynard. The example provided by Ms. Portman was that she had received over 200 emails from Ms. Maynard. Ms. Portman indicated that the procedure that Ms. Maynard was required to follow when she (Ms. Maynard) had issues or concerns that needed to be addressed was (a) make an appointment with the administrator through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; and (b) provide the confidential secretary with the issue in writing. Only when (a) and (b) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue at the appointment time. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman issued to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard would cease and desist sending issues via emails and that conferences would be scheduled per the procedure outlined. The fifth concern of Ms. Portman's was protocol compliance. Ms. Portman indicated that the proper procedure for Ms. Maynard to adhere to when Ms. Maynard had a complaint or concern was to first, contact her (Ms. Maynard's) supervisor, not the area office, wherein Ms. Maynard would be provided with an opportunity to meet with an administrator. Additionally, as to meeting with an administrator, (a) Ms. Maynard would meet with either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione; (b) an appointment with the administrator would be made through the confidential secretary, identifying that person; (c) Ms. Maynard would provide the confidential secretary with the issue or concern in writing; (d) only when (b) and (c) were complied with, would either Ms. Portman or Ms. Castiglione meet with Ms. Maynard, during Ms. Maynard's planning time, on the issue or concern at the appointment time; (e) administration would address the issue or concern and after the issue or concern had been presented to administration, Ms. Maynard was to consider the issue or concern closed. Further, the directive that Ms. Portman gave to Ms. Maynard was that Ms. Maynard was to comply with the protocol outlined for all of her concerns. Moreover, Ms. Portman indicated that a failure by Ms. Portman to follow all of the directives would result in disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment. A summary of the meeting of concerns and job expectations was prepared. On January 18, 2007, Ms. Portman noticed Ms. Maynard by letter that a pre-disciplinary meeting would be held on January 29, 2007, regarding gross insubordination by Ms. Maynard. Among other things, the notice directed Ms. Maynard to "cease and desist all communication with parents both written and oral" until the meeting was held. The notice was hand-delivered to Ms. Maynard at Cypress Elementary. On or about January 22, 2007, Ms. Portman held a meeting to develop a strategic plan to help motivate one of Ms. Maynard's students, who was in foster care, in the areas of academics and behavior. In addition to Ms. Portman, attendees at the meeting included, among others, Ms. Castiglione; Ms. Smith-Settles; and the student's Guardian Ad-Litem. During the meeting, the Guardian Ad-Litem indicated that Ms. Maynard had telephoned the student's foster parent, engaged in more than a 45-minute conversation, and, during the telephone conversation, made negative comments about Cypress Elementary. On January 23, 2007, Ms. Portman provided Ms. Maynard with a Notice of Special Investigative/Personnel Investigation (Notice) by hand-delivery. The Notice stated, among other things, that the investigation regarded allegations that Ms. Maynard was creating a hostile environment. The Notice directed Ms. Maynard not to engage anyone, connected with the allegations, in conversation regarding the matter and advised that a violation of the directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Further, the Notice advised Ms. Maynard that, if she had any question regarding the status of the investigation, she should contact Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, providing his contact telephone number. The Notice was provided to Ms. Maynard as a result of Ms. Portman making a request for the investigation on January 17, 2007. The request indicated that the allegations were: (1) yelling at paraprofessional staff in the cafeteria; (2) yelling at both the principal and assistant principal on December 20, 2006; (3) accusing the principal of falsifying documents even after the school district investigation found the accusation unwarranted; (4) not complying with directives; and (5) accusing the principal of lying to a parent at a conference. The pre-disciplinary meeting noticed for January 29, 2007, was not held due to the placing of Ms. Maynard under investigation. On or about January 25, 2007, Ms. Maynard was temporarily reassigned to the School Board's Textbook Warehouse by Mr. Melita. Temporary reassignment is standard operating procedure during an investigation. Teachers are usually temporarily reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse. Because of the investigation, Ms. Maynard could not return to Cypress Elementary or contact anyone at Cypress Elementary without Mr. Melita's authorization. The SIU investigator assigned to the case was Frederick Davenport. On August 14, 2007, Investigator Davenport went to the Textbook Warehouse to serve a notice of reassignment on Ms. Maynard from Mr. Melita that her reassignment was changed immediately and that she was reassigned to Crystal Lake Community Middle School. The notice of reassignment required Ms. Maynard's signature. Investigator Davenport met with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room and advised her of his purpose, which was not to perform any investigative duties but to serve the notice of reassignment and obtain her signature. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the notice of reassignment because it was not signed by Mr. Melita and left. Investigator Davenport contacted Professional Standards and requested the faxing of an executed notice of reassignment by Mr. Melita to the Textbook Warehouse. Professional Standards complied with the request. Investigator Davenport met again with Ms. Maynard in private in the conference room. Ms. Maynard refused to sign the executed notice of reassignment. She felt threatened by Investigator Davenport and ran from the room into the parking area behind the Textbook Warehouse at the loading dock. A finding of fact is made that Investigator Davenport did nothing that the undersigned considers threatening. Investigator Davenport did not immediately follow Ms. Maynard but eventually went to the steps next to the loading dock, however, he did not approach Ms. Maynard in the parking lot. Ms. Maynard refused to talk with Investigator Davenport, expressing her fear of him, and contacted the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO). A BSO deputy came to the parking lot. After Ms. Maynard discussed the situation with the BSO deputy and a friend of Ms. Maynard's, who arrived at the scene, she signed the notice of reassignment. Investigator Davenport delivered the notice of reassignment to Professional Standards. Investigator Davenport completed his investigation and forwarded the complete investigative file and his report to his supervisor for approval. At that time, his involvement in the investigation ended. His supervisor presented the investigation to Professional Standards. On or about September 19, 2007, the Professional Standards Committee found probable cause that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment and recommended termination of her employment. The Flyer On April 27, 2009, a town hall meeting was held by the School Board at the Pompano Beach High School's auditorium. That town hall meeting was one of several being held the same night by the School Board. The process and procedure for the town hall meeting included (a) all persons who wished to speak were required to sign-up to speak and (b), if they desired to distribute documents, prior to distribution, the documents were required to be submitted and receive prior approval. Security was at the auditorium, and Investigator Davenport was one of the security officers. During the town hall meeting, an unidentified man rose from his seat, began to talk out-of-turn and loud, was moving toward the front where School Board officials were located, and was distributing a flyer. The actions of the unidentified man got the attention of Investigator Davenport and caused concern about the safety of the School Board officials. Investigator Davenport and the other security officer approached the unidentified man, obtained the flyer, and escorted him out of the auditorium. Once outside, the unidentified man indicated, among other things, that he had not obtained prior approval to distribute the flyer. The unidentified man did not identify who gave him the flyer. Investigator Davenport observed that the flyer was placed on most of the vehicles in the auditorium's parking lot. Once Investigator Davenport and his fellow security officer were convinced that the unidentified man was not a threat to the School Board officials, they released the unidentified man who left the area. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer saw Ms. Maynard at the town hall meeting or had any indication that she had been there. Neither Investigator Davenport nor his fellow security officer had any indication that Ms. Maynard had requested the man to distribute the flyer. The flyer was signed by Ms. Maynard and dated April 27, 2009. The heading of the flyer contained the following: "PARENTS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE"; an email address; and "PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN." The content of the flyer included statements that Ms. Maynard was a teacher in 2006 at Cypress Elementary and was directed twice by her administrators in emails to falsify Title I documents; that she was directed to mislead parents about materials and services that the students were legally entitled to; that many of the students failed because they were denied the materials and services; that she refused to follow the directives and filed complaints with the proper authorities; that in 2008, Ms. Portman, who gave the directives to Ms. Maynard, was removed from Cypress Elementary, along with Ms. Murphins and Dr. Harrison--the flyer also indicated the new locations of the individuals; that persons, who were interested in learning how to prevent themselves from being misinformed and to protect their children from being denied the materials and services, should contact Ms. Maynard at the email address on the flyer; and that parents who gather together have more power than teachers to influence the school districts. Ms. Maynard had no determinations or proof to support any of the allegations in the flyer, only her belief. Recognizing that the flyer contained statements similar to the statements of his investigative report, Investigator Davenport forwarded the flyer to Mr. Melita. Ms. Maynard admits that she prepared the flyer and signed it. She indicates that an individual who claimed to be a member of the parent group, Parents For Full Disclosure, contacted and met with her. That individual, who also did not reveal her identity, requested Ms. Maynard to prepare the flyer and informed Ms. Maynard that the flyer would be distributed at the town hall meeting. Filing Various Complaints with Investigative Agencies Ms. Maynard filed various complaints with public investigative agencies regarding: harassment during the investigation; minority teachers being investigated, reassigned to the Textbook Warehouse, and not receiving annual evaluations; and the flyer. The public investigative agencies included the FBI, Broward County EEOC, federal EEOC, Florida Public Service Commission, and Florida Commission on Human Relations. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Maynard was prohibited from filing the complaints. Contract Status At the time of the investigation of Ms. Maynard in January 2007 for creating a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Further, at the time that Professional Standards determined probable cause, on or about September 19, 2007, that Ms. Maynard had created a hostile work environment, she was under a continuing contract. Ms. Maynard testified that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract, a fact which the School Board did not refute. A finding of fact is made that, on November 2, 2007, she received and signed a professional services contract. Employment Requiring a Teaching Certificate At the time of hearing, Ms. Maynard had not found employment requiring a teaching certificate since being suspended, without pay and benefits, by the School Board on or about March 18, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order: Finding that Doreen Maynard committed Counts 2 (only as to gross immorality), 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 16; Dismissing Counts 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 17; and Suspending Doreen Maynard's educator's certificate for three years, with denial of an application for an educator's certificate for the three-year period, and, after completion of the suspension, placing her on probation for one year under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Commissioner of Education. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2011.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Carl B. Dietz (Dietz) was employed as a member of the instructional staff of Trafalgar Middle School, Lee County School District (District) pursuant to a professional service contract. Throughout Dietz's employment with the District, his annual evaluations indicate that the quality of his work was deemed an "effective level of performance". Dietz was initially employed by the District as a regular teacher on August 15, 1985. Dietz holds Florida Teaching Certificate #543771 issued by the Florida Department of Education. He is certified to teach secondary-level history and junior high school mathematics. For six years prior to the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught advanced level American history and math at Cypress Lakes High School. Most of Dietz's students at Cypress Lakes were approximately 16-18 years old. A decrease in enrollment at Cypress Lakes resulted in a reduction of teaching staff at Cypress Lakes. Because no other high school instructional positions were open, Dietz was offered and accepted a position at Trafalgar Middle School. During the 1991-92 school year, Dietz taught history to Trafalgar eighth graders. During the school year 1992-93, Dietz was assigned teaching responsibilities for the Trafalgar Middle School sixth grade PASS program math and social studies classes. The PASS (Pupils Achieving School Success) program is a state funded project developed to focus specific attention on students identified as at risk of withdrawal from school prior to high school graduation. Dietz had no previous experience as an instructor in a PASS program. Dietz received no special training for the PASS program. The sixth grade students in the PASS program were approximately 11-12 years old. The nature of the PASS program may result in students who are less disciplined and more disruptive than the students Dietz had previously taught. Dietz taught two PASS classes, a morning group and an afternoon group. Students from both classes testified during the hearing. Conflicts in testimony have been resolved as indicated in the following Findings of Fact. It is alleged that on one day in October, 1992, Dietz, yanked a chair from under a student, resulting in the student's head striking the desk as he fell to the floor. The evidence establishes that the student was sitting sideways in the chair and was rocking back on the rear legs of the chair. Dietz grabbed the seatback and the chair slid from under the student who fell to the floor. The greater weight of the evidence is insufficient to establish that the student struck his head during the fall. In any event, the student was not physically injured in the incident. Dietz asserted that the student had been previously warned about sitting improperly, and that he grabbed the seatback to startle the child and "make the point" that he should sit properly. There is no evidence that the action of Dietz was an appropriate manner in which to discipline the child for sitting incorrectly in the chair. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz addressed a child (whose pronunciation of his first name was poor) by a mispronunciation of the child's name as a means of encouraging the child to pronounce the name correctly. Upon requesting Dietz to correctly pronounce the name, Dietz discontinued his practice. The evidence fails to establish that the child was harmed by the mispronunciation of his name. In October, 1992, Dietz removed a non-functioning clock from the classroom wall and threw it down. The battery came out of the clock and struck a female student's leg, but no injury resulted. The allegation that Dietz's removal of the clock was accompanied by a remark that the "piece of shit" clock was not working is not supported by the greater weight of credible evidence. It is alleged that Dietz threw a pencil and book at one student who came to class without materials. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Dietz slammed a book down on the table in front of the student, who was being seated away from class as a disciplinary measure. The evidence also establishes that Dietz tossed a pencil to the child. The evidence fails to indicate that tossing a pencil to a sixth grade child is an appropriate method of distributing school supplies. The pencil would have hit the child had he not moved from the path of the projectile, however the evidence does not establish any intent to injure the child by Dietz. In October, 1992, four female students from Dietz's afternoon class locked themselves in a bathroom stall during a rest room break and remained there when the break ended. Standing in the school hallway, Dietz reached into the bathroom, knocked on the stall door and directed the female students to return to class. It is alleged that upon exiting the bathroom, Dietz addressed the students as "lesbians," "perverts" and "gaywads." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the presence of the female students or that his action in directing the students to return to class was inappropriate. It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992- 93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words and phrases: "nigger," "nigger shit," and "nigger talk," and instructed one student to "take your black ass back to Africa." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom. It is alleged that at various times in the classroom during the 1992- 93 school year, Dietz uttered the following words: "ass," "assholes," "shit," "hell," "fucking assholes," and "fucking jerks." The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Dietz used such language in the classroom. It is alleged that on one occasion at the end of the class session during the 1992-93 school year, Dietz instructed a student in the completed class to get his "fat ass" out of the classroom. There was testimony that Dietz directed the student to get his "fat carcass" out of the classroom. While the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Dietz indeed addressed the child as "fat", it is insufficient to establish that Dietz used the word "ass" in the presence of the child. The evidence fails to establish that use of the descriptive word "fat" resulted in injury to the child. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threw a plastic cup at a student. The evidence fails to support the allegation. It is alleged that in October, 1992, Dietz threatened to tell the mother of a student that the child was "a big fat lump of nothing." The evidence fails to support the allegation. In October, 1992, a student inquired of Dietz as to whether he believed the students in the class were "brats." Dietz replied in the affirmative. The student then asked if Dietz thought the inquiring student was a "brat." Dietz again replied in the affirmative. It is alleged that Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his car. It is alleged that on the day questioned about the gun, Dietz admitted having the gun in the car. The evidence fails to establish that, on the day questioned, Dietz (who owned several vehicles) had the gun in the glove box of the car driven. However, the evidence establishes that, on at least one occasion, Dietz drove onto the school grounds with a loaded and cased handgun locked in the glove box of his vehicle. The all times material to this case, there was no written School Board policy prohibiting a loaded and cased weapon from being on the school grounds locked in a vehicle glove box. There were no oral directives to faculty that a loaded and cased weapon, locked in a vehicle glove box, was prohibited from school grounds. At one time in the Spring of 1992, the school principal brought a firearm onto school grounds, the thereafter loaded and fired the weapon as part of a demonstration. The District's assertion that the related alleged violation of federal law is sufficient to support termination is rejected. On October 28, 1992, a number of Dietz's students went to the office of a school guidance counselor and voiced a number of complaints about alleged conduct. The counselor noted the complaints and reported the matter to the assistant principal of the school. On October 29, 1992, the assistant principal met with Dietz to discuss the allegations. According to the assistant principal, Dietz admitted to the alleged behaviors, except for one specific accusation regarding addressing a specific student as a "fucking ass." According to Dietz, he did not admit that such behaviors occurred and instead asserts that he attempted to explain some of the reasons for the allegations, including the grades assigned to some of the complaining students. The conflict in recollections is reconciled in favor of Dietz. On October 30, 1992, Dietz met with the principal of the school, during which time Dietz admitted that he had previously stored a loaded and cased handgun in the glove box of one of the vehicles he drove onto school grounds. On October 30, 1992, Dietz was suspended with pay based on the allegations of improper conduct. In November, 1992, an employee of the superintendent of the Lee County school district undertook an investigation of the allegations regarding Dietz. On November 10, 1992, a predetermination conference was held. On November 13, 1992, Dietz was advised that on November 17, 1992, the district superintendant would recommend to the school board that Dietz be suspended without pay and benefits pending termination of employment. Effective November 17, 1992, the board elected to suspend Dietz without pay and benefits. Dietz was notified of the board action by letter dated November 25, 1993. The letter provided that Dietz could request a formal administrative hearing on the matter. By letter dated November 19, 1992, Dietz requested formal hearing of the board's November 17 action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School District of Lee County enter a Final Order reinstating the employment of Carl B. Dietz and providing for back pay and benefits retroactive to November 17, 1992. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7075 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6-8. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected. The rest room discussion is irrelevant. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence fails to establish that the chair was "yanked" from under the student or that the student struck his head. The alleged lack of an apology is irrelevant. Rejected as to Dietz interaction with Mr. Nolan, irrelevant. Rejected, as to the discussion of poster touching, irrelevant. Rejected, as to the alleged "black talk" remark, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as to alleged remark that the class "sucks", not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 20-21. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 23-25. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 26. Rejected, subordinate. 28-29. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 30, 32. Rejected, subordinate. Recitation of testimony not appropriate finding of fact. 33. Rejected, unnecessary. 34-40. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 11. Rejected as to allegation of child striking head in fall, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 13, 15. Rejected, subordinate. 16. Rejected as to force of toss or intent to strike child, irrelevant, no evidence that such action is appropriate regardless of intent. 17-20, 22. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, unnecessary 25-30. Rejected, subordinate. 31-38. Rejected, goes to credibility of witnesses which has been determined as reflected in the Findings of Fact set forth herein. 42, 44. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams Superintendent Lee County School District 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John J. Hament, Esquire 1800 Second Street, Suite 785 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Robert J. Coleman, Esquire 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact During the 1985-86 school year Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens was a student in the tenth grade at Miami Sunset Senior High School. On April 18, 1986, during the lunch period Respondent drove into the faculty parking lot in his Corvette with the police following closely behind. It was determined that during his lunch break Respondent had been driving his Corvette in a nearby condominium development threatening residents and throwing beer cans on the lawns. The residents had summoned the police. An Assistant Principal held a conference with Respondent's father whose response was that the police should have better things to do than to bother his son for drinking beer and driving around during his lunch break. Respondent was given a three-day suspension. On May 22, 1986, Respondent got into a fight in class, a Group III violation of the Code of Student Conduct. A conference was held with Respondent's father, and Respondent was given a ten-day suspension. Although other informal discussions were held with Respondent's father during that school year, by the end of the third grading period Respondent's grades were one "C," one "D," and 4 "Fs." His absences from his classes during the third grading period alone ranged between 2 and 13. He received only a "3" for his effort in each and every class. During the 1985-86 school year, Respondent was absent 95 days out of the 180-day school year. On March 3, 1987, an Assistant Principal observed Respondent leaving the campus during Respondent's second-period class. He stopped Respondent and gave him a warning. A few minutes later he caught Respondent again attempting to leave. Respondent's mother was contacted, and Respondent was given a "work detail detention." On April 2, 1987, a fight broke out off campus between a group of Latin students and a group of Anglo students. On the following day Respondent admitted to an Assistant Principal that he was one of the participants. All of the students involved (including Respondent) were suspended for three days for that Group III Code violation. On October 19, 1987, Respondent was nearly involved in a collision in the parking lot. Respondent got out of his car and started pushing the other driver. A fight ensued. Respondent's parents were contacted, and he was given a ten-day suspension. By the time of the October 19th incident, Respondent had already been absent 6 days that school year. Further, although the Assistant Principal had two conferences with Respondent's father during the month of October, Respondent was receiving one "C," one "D," and five "Fs" in his classes. A Child Study Team was convened, and a meeting was held on November 3, 1987. Respondent and his parents refused to attend. The Team recommended that Respondent be transferred to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South, based upon the October 19, 1987, incident, his failing grades during the most-recent two years, and Respondent's chronic aggressive behavior which constituted a threat to the welfare of the other students. It was determined that Respondent required assistance a normal school could not provide and that a structured environment would be more appropriate since the educators at Miami Sunset Senior High School had unsuccessfully attempted to modify Respondent's behavior by conferences between Respondent and a counselor, meetings between Respondent's parents and assistant principals, indoor suspensions, outdoor suspensions, and work detail suspensions
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Gregory Hunter Stephens to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School-South until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 29th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: JOSEPH A. FERNANDEZ, SUPERINTENDENT SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE 175 FONTAINEBLEAU BOULEVARD SUITE 2A-3 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33172 LANA STEPHENS 15490 S.W. 85TH LANE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33183 MADELYN P. SCHERE, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 PHYLLIS O. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT BOARD ATTORNEY DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 NORTHEAST SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marion County School Board (“Petitioner” or “Board”), had just cause to discipline Respondent for misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint (“Complaint”) dated March 10, 2020.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Marion County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At the time of the alleged incident, Respondent was employed as a testing coordinator at Dunnellon Middle, pursuant to a professional services contract with the Board. During the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent served as a dean of discipline at Dunnellon Middle. As dean, she had dealt with discipline of students possessing drugs on campus, as well as students suspected of smoking marijuana either on a school bus or at the school bus stop. Leah Grace is a guidance counselor at Dunnellon Middle. Michelle Reese is the guidance office clerk. On January 30, 2020, student L.L. came to the guidance office and told Ms. Reese he wanted to speak with Ms. Grace about enrollment in a magnet program for the following school year. However, when L.L. entered Ms. Grace’s office, he sat down and began crying. L.L. confided in Ms. Grace that he “had something he was not supposed to have at school.” L.L. stated that he did not know who to trust. L.L. was distraught and Ms. Grace was unable to calm him. She decided to contact his mother to pick him up from school. Aware that L.L.’s mother does not speak English, Ms. Grace sought help from someone at the school who spoke Spanish. Respondent speaks Spanish. Ms. Grace contacted Respondent and asked her to come to the guidance office to help her with a student. When Respondent arrived at Ms. Grace’s office, she observed L.L. visibly upset, sobbing with his face in his hands, rocking back and forth. Ms. Grace relayed to Respondent what L.L. had shared with her—that he “had something he was not supposed to have at school.” Respondent recognized L.L. and asked him three questions in quick succession: Do you have a weapon? L.L. shook his head “no” in response; Do you plan to hurt yourself or someone else? L.L. shook his head “no” in response; and Do you have weed? L.L. nodded his head in response to the third question, indicating that he did have marijuana. L.L. confided that another student, D.G., had given the marijuana to L.L. in the cafeteria that morning to “hold on to” for him. L.L. had grown anxious during the school day about having the drugs in his possession and had come to the guidance office for help. When L.L. nodded in the affirmative that he had weed on him, Respondent stated something to the effect of “that is no reason to go home.” Respondent suggested L.L. just flush the marijuana down the toilet. L.L. promptly went into a small restroom attached to Ms. Grace’s office, flushed the toilet, washed his face, and began to compose himself. Afterward, Respondent told L.L. he needed to find better friends. As Respondent was no longer needed for translation, she left the guidance office and returned to her duties in the testing lab. Ms. Grace allowed L.L. to go to his next class, a grade-recovery course for which he was already late. Julia Roof teaches the class and had been concerned that L.L. was not in class on time. L.L. arrived at the classroom toward the end of the class period, and Ms. Roof observed that L.L. was upset. L.L. initially insisted that he was “fine,” but Ms. Roof pressed him because he was visibly upset. L.L. confided in Ms. Roof about the incident. He admitted that he had marijuana in his possession at school that day, that another student had asked him to hold it, and that he had been to the guidance office where the marijuana had been “flushed.” Neither Ms. Grace nor Respondent reported the incident to the school resource officer or anyone in school administration. Nor did either of them notify L.L.’s mother. Ms. Roof reported the incident to Delbert Smallridge, principal at Dunnellon Middle, at the end of the school day. Principal Smallridge’s Investigation Mr. Smallridge has served as principal at Dunnellon Middle for nine years, and has worked in the Marion County school system in various positions for 31 years. Ms. Roof reported the incident to Mr. Smallridge after school at car pickup. Before he left the school for the day, Mr. Smallridge contacted the school resource officer to notify him that there was a situation with drugs on the school campus that day. He also notified Brent Carson, director of professional practices (i.e., human resources) for the Marion County School District (“the District”), with the limited information he had obtained. The following morning, Friday, January 31, 2020, Mr. Smallridge began an internal investigation into the incident. He first interviewed L.L., in the presence of Ms. Roof; took notes of the events L.L. related; reviewed the notes verbally with L.L.; as well as having L.L. read them to himself. Afterward, he asked L.L. to sign his name at the bottom of the page as his statement of the incident. The next person he interviewed, Ms. Reese, came to him directly. She reported to Mr. Smallridge that she had information she felt he should know. She told Mr. Smallridge that Ms. Grace had confided in her that morning that she had allowed a student to flush marijuana in plastic bags down the toilet in her office the prior day, and that she was concerned that they may come back up or otherwise cause a plumbing problem. Ms. Reese provided and signed a written statement to that effect. Mr. Smallridge also interviewed, and took a written statement from, Ms. Roof regarding the incident. Before the school day ended, he also spoke to Mr. Carson, who instructed him to complete the school-level investigation by interviewing and getting written statements from Respondent and all witnesses, and do his best to determine what had happened. Mr. Smallridge interviewed Ms. Grace the following Monday, February 3, 2020, in the presence of his confidential secretary. Mr. Smallridge took notes of his interview with Ms. Grace, and Ms. Grace provided a written statement of her own. During his interview with Ms. Grace, Mr. Smallridge noted that “both [Ms. Grace and Respondent] were aware [L.L.] had drugs.” In Ms. Grace’s written statement, she stated that she “couldn’t remember” whether it was she or Respondent who told L.L. to flush the marijuana, “but I think it was me.” She stated that L.L. went to the small bathroom attached to her office, “then came out and told me he flushed it, bag and all.” Ms. Grace’s statement also confirmed that both she and Respondent were in her office when L.L. went to the bathroom. Ms. Grace later resigned from Dunnellon Middle. On August 26, 2020, after her resignation, she gave a second written statement regarding the incident. In that statement, Ms. Grace claimed responsibility for telling L.L. to flush the marijuana and called it a “momentary lapse in judgement.” She felt sorry for L.L. and did not want him to get in trouble, either with the school or with law enforcement. Mr. Smallridge also interviewed Respondent, who stated that, when L.L. nodded his head in response to her question, “Do you have weed,” she understood L.L. to mean that he had marijuana in his system, not on his person. Further, she claimed to have left Ms. Grace’s office shortly after she asked those questions and was not aware that L.L. had drugs on his person or that he flushed drugs in Ms. Grace’s office. Respondent also gave Mr. Smallridge a written statement. In her written statement, Respondent described the events of January 31, 2020. She said that when she first observed L.L. in Ms. Grace’s office, “The kid seemed sick, rocking, sobbing and not speaking.” She continued, “I thought he might be intoxicated as to why he would want to go home and not to the nurse. I asked him if he had weed as if in smoked it, had it in his system. He nodded and continued to cry. I said, that is no reason to go home.” Mr. Smallridge gathered all the statements and notes from his investigation, scanned and sent them to Mr. Carson. Jaycee Oliver is the executive director of employee relations for the District and is responsible for disciplinary issues with District employees, including hearings, grievances, mediations, and arbitrations. Ms. Oliver reviewed the documents from Mr. Smallridge, and discussed the incident with Mr. Carson and Mr. Smallridge. Ms. Oliver determined that the incident warranted a District-level investigation. District Investigation and Discipline The District investigation was conducted by Dawana Gary, director of equities and ethics, who worked with Tyson Collins, an investigator in her department. Ms. Gary was present for the interviews of both Ms. Grace and Respondent. Mr. Collins interviewed the remaining witnesses. Their interviews were recorded. Following the investigation, Ms. Gary prepared an investigative report containing written findings and conclusions. Based on the investigation, Ms. Gary concluded that both Respondent and Ms. Grace violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., which provides that the educator’s obligation to the student requires that the educator “[s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” She also concluded that both Respondent and Ms. Grace violated School Board Policy 6.27 I., which requires school board employees to comply with rule 6A-10.081. Ms. Gary sent her investigative report to Ms. Oliver, along with a recommendation that both Ms. Grace and Respondent receive a written reprimand, three-day suspension without pay, and mandatory training. Ms. Oliver reviewed the report and recommendation, and was surprised the recommendation was so lenient. Ms. Oliver characterized the violations as “egregious” and recommended to the superintendent that both Respondent and Ms. Grace be terminated. At the final hearing, Ms. Oliver testified that Respondent’s behavior was egregious because, not only did she fail to report the incident or take other measures to protect L.L., but also that allowing the student to dispose of the drugs prevented a proper investigation into distribution of drugs on campus. She maintained that Respondent’s behavior allowed both D.G., who was allegedly selling drugs on campus, and students who may purchase or otherwise obtain drugs from him, to remain in harm’s way. Without the drugs themselves as evidence, any potential investigation was jeopardized. Ms. Oliver discussed the recommendations for discipline at length with the superintendent. The superintendent made the final decision to impose a written reprimand and a five-day suspension, and require Respondent to take a course on “Reasonable Suspicion Drug Training” upon her return to work. L.L.’s statement that Respondent told him to flush the drugs is the only credible evidence on which to base a finding that Respondent did in fact do so.1 Respondent attempted to discredit L.L.’s testimony by introducing evidence (all of which was hearsay) that L.L. had previously been untruthful to teachers and had a penchant for drama. This evidence was neither credible nor reliable. L.L.’s testimony was clear: he acknowledged he had “weed;” he showed Respondent and Ms. Grace the weed; Respondent instructed him to 1 L.L.’s statement is an exception to the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent. See § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. flush the weed; and he flushed the weed down the toilet in Ms. Grace’s private restroom. Ms. Grace’s testimony that she was the one who instructed L.L. to flush the marijuana is also not accepted as credible. Ms. Grace’s original statement to Mr. Smallridge (repeated in her first written statement) that she could not remember whether it was she or Respondent who told L.L. to flush the marijuana, was simply not credible. A middle school guidance counselor in her situation would have a clear memory of instructing a student to flush drugs down the toilet. Likewise, her memory that a teacher instructed the student to do so in her presence would likewise be significant enough to remember clearly. Further, Ms. Grace and Respondent were close colleagues, frequently having lunch together, and socializing outside of school on at least one occasion. Ms. Grace’s subsequent statement accepting responsibility for telling L.L. to flush the drugs was likely an attempt to protect Respondent. When she gave her second statement, Ms. Grace had already resigned from Dunnellon Middle; therefore, she could not be disciplined for falsely accepting responsibility for instructing L.L. to flush the marijuana. Finally, Ms. Grace’s testimony at the final hearing was too well- rehearsed to be credible. Notably, Ms. Grace had a well-rehearsed explanation for why Respondent would not have heard her tell L.L. to flush the drugs while they were sitting in her very small office, and she inserted that explanation in answer to a wholly-unrelated question. She attempted to explain Respondent’s state of mind, which she could not have known. In sum, Ms. Grace’s testimony was unreliable and was insufficient to establish that she, rather than Respondent, instructed L.L. to flush the marijuana down the toilet. Respondent’s testimony that she understood L.L. to mean he had marijuana in his system, rather than on his person, was not credible. L.L. had stated that he “had something he wasn’t supposed to have at school.” Respondent asked him if he “had weed” after asking him if he “had a weapon,” clearly seeking knowledge of what he possessed at school that he knew was off limits. Further, L.L.’s testimony that he showed Ms. Grace and Respondent the weed is accepted as true. Even if Respondent’s testimony that she understood L.L. to mean that he had marijuana in his system was accepted as true, that fact, coupled with her description of him as appearing ill, and possibly intoxicated,2 created a responsibility to take some step to protect the student’s health and well- being. If she understood L.L. to mean that he had ingested marijuana, and he appeared to her to be ill, her statement “that is no reason to go home,” was completely unprofessional. L.L.’s mother should have been contacted to pick him up from school, and administration should have been notified so that the situation could be avoided in the future to secure L.L.’s health and safety, as well as other students potentially involved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Marion County School Board enter a final order upholding both the charges and the discipline imposed against Respondent, Maria Acosta. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 18th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Eric J. Lindstrom, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 5276 Gainesville, Florida 32627 (eServed) Heidi S. Parker, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 2nd Floor 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Dr. Diane Gullett, Superintendent Marion County School Board 512 Southeast 3rd Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are: whether Respondent's intent to award a contract to Intervenor for an immediate response notification system pursuant to Request for Proposal 2007-01 (the RFP) was contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules, policies, and solicitation specifications and whether Petitioner has standing to protest the intended award.
Findings Of Fact The Florida legislature designated funds in the amount of $1,500,000 in Specific Appropriation 116 of House Bill 5001, the 2006 General Appropriations Act (Specific Appropriation 116) for pilot implementation of an immediate response notification system in seven Florida school districts. The appropriation provided: Funds for School Safety/Emergency Preparedness are provided for pilot implementation of an immediate response information system in one large, two medium, and four small school districts. The system will serve to enhance the safety of school children in emergency situations, such as impending hurricane and severe weather, fire, bomb threat, homeland security and other critical school safety events. The system must be real-time and multi-lingual with the ability to notify parents of emergency and non-emergency situations in at least ten different languages through email, telephone, and other communication devices. The Department of Education shall competitively bid this project in accordance with the provisions of chapter 287, Florida Statutes. To allow for early implementation, all funds shall be under contract no later than September 15, 2006. The Department issued the RFP on or about September 1, 2006. Pertinent portions of the RFP provided: PROPOSALS ARE DUE BY: 2:30 EST, ON SEPTEMBER, 15, 2006. ESTIMATED POSTING BEGINS SEPTEMBER 25, 2006, AND ENDS SEPTEMBER 28, 2006. [Cover Sheet] The Department is seeking qualified vendors to provide pilot implementation of an immediate response notification system to be piloted in seven (7) Florida school districts. Additional school districts may be added in subsequent years based on appropriations and periodic performance reviews. The Proposer must have a notification system that currently exists. The system must have undergone rigorous field testing and evidence must be provided to demonstrate successful implementation for similar school districts. The Proposer must have demonstrated the ability to coordinate and integrate all components of the system. The proposed system shall not require the school districts to purchase or lease any additional hardware or software or infrastructure upgrade to obtain the service. The pilots will be in one large, two medium, and four small districts. For purposes of this proposal a large district would be any district with over 150,000 students, a medium would be any district of 50,000-100,000 students and a small district would have up to 50,000 students. [Page 29] The State's performance and obligation to pay under this contract are contingent upon an annual appropriation by the Legislature. [Page 11] Any protest concerning this solicitation shall be made in accordance with Sections 120.57(3) and 287.042(2) of the Florida Statutes and chapter 28-110 of the Florida Administrative Code. Questions to the Procurement Office shall not constitute formal notice of a protest. It is the Buyer's intent to ensure that specifications are written to obtain the best value for the State and that specifications are written to ensure competitiveness, fairness, necessity and reasonableness in the solicitation process. [Page 16] Any person who is adversely affected by the specifications contained in this RFP must file the following with the Department . . . A written Notice of Intent to Protest within seventy-two (72) hours after posting of this RFP specifications, and The Formal Written Protest by petition and Protest Bond in compliance with Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, within ten (10) days after the date on which the written Notice of Protest is filed. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. [Page 19] A responsive proposal is a proposal submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor which conforms in all material respects to the solicitation. A responsive and responsible vendor is a vendor that has submitted a proposal that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation and who has the capability in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability that will assure good-faith performance. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth as mandatory, or without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is unreasonable or impossible, or those which affect the competitiveness of proposals or the cost to the State. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or non- responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to, failing to utilize or complete prescribed forms, modifying the proposal requirements, submitting conditional proposals or incomplete proposals, submitting indefinite or ambiguous proposals, or executing forms or the proposal sheet with improper and/or undated signatures. Proposals found non- responsive will not be considered. Proposers whose proposals, past performance or current status do not reflect the capacity, integrity or reliability to perform fully and in good faith the requirements of the Contract may be rejected as non-responsible. The Department reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP, and which proposers are responsible. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal in accordance with all requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving seventy (70) points or more on the Technical Proposal. [Page 21] The Department will determine whether the Proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon their proposal demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. [Page 25] REFERENCES: (ATTACHMENT 3) Provide at least three (3) references, which demonstrate efforts comparable to the one described in the RFP. Provide a list of school districts and other venues where this technology is currently in use. The Department reserves the right to contact the references regarding the services provided. [Pages 27-28] ATTACHMENT '3' WORK REFERENCES Provide the following reference information for a minimum of three (3) similar school districts or other venues where services of similar size and scope have been completed. [Page 37] Proposals will be evaluated and graded in accordance with the criteria detailed below. a. Technical Proposal (100 Points) Technical evaluation is the process of reviewing the Proposer's Executive Summary, Management Plan, and Technical Plan for understanding the project, qualifications, approach and capabilities, to assure a quality product. Only those proposals that are found to meet the verification of Section 4.2 Mandatory Submittal Documents will have the technical proposal evaluated. For this purpose, evaluators will consider a Proposer's description and explanation of the proposed products and services as described in the proposal and the supporting documents. The proposal evaluation committee, acting independently, will assign ratings of the quality of the proposed technical solutions to the work tasks specified in the RFP. Of these ratings the high and the low score will be discarded and the remaining scores averaged. The following point system is established for scoring the technical proposals: . . . Qualifications and Experience including rigorous testing of the system (10 [points]). . . Price Proposal Price analysis is conducted through the comparison of price quotations submitted. By submitting a proposal, Proposers agree to serve the seven (7) districts selected by the Department even if the total cost for the districts selected will exceed the amount of the Appropriation. Only proposals that are found to meet the mandatory minimum requirements and which receive an average rating of seventy (70) or more points for the Technical Proposal will have the cost proposal evaluated. The Department will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Any cost proposal that is incomplete may be rejected by the Department. Cost analysis is conducted through the comparison of price quotations submitted. A total of 20 points is possible. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to two decimal points. The criteria for price evaluation shall be based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) x Price Points=Proposer's Awarded Points [Pages 32-33] The price proposal must be submitted on the form provided as Attachment '4'. [Page 29] ATTACHEMENT '4' VENDOR'S BID SHEET We propose to provide the services being solicited within the specifications of RFP 2007-01. All work shall be performed in accordance with this Request for Proposal, which has been reviewed and understood. It is also understood that the Proposer will serve the seven (7) districts selected by the Department even if the total cost for the districts selected will exceed the amount of the Appropriation. DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST____ PRICE PER STUDENT $ /per student [Page 38] NTI did not file a protest concerning any of the specifications of the RFP within 72 hours of the issuance of the RFP. Addendum No. 1 to the RFP was issued on or about September 8, 2006, to provide answers to questions submitted by vendors during a question and answer period. Addendum No. 1 was the only addendum to the RFP and provided an answer to a question submitted by Roam Secure, Inc. (Roam Secure) regarding pricing. The question and answer provided: Q. Our pricing is based on total number of users. Because there is a significant amount of up front work involved, i.e. server setup, network optimization, data import, registration customization, and training, it is not feasible for us to supply a solution based on a few users. As such we are hoping that [the Department] will allow us to provide a total price for this RFP based on unlimited number of users for the 7 districts. Would that be acceptable to [the Department]? A. This would be acceptable, as the RFP states the vendor will serve the entire population of the seven districts chosen by the Department of Education. The large district will have more than 150,000 students, the two medium districts will range between 50,000 students and 150,000 students and four small districts will include districts with student populations of up to 50,000. See page 29.5.0 Scope of Services in the RFP. Addendum No. 1 did not address how the Department was going to compare a total price with a per student price as set out in the original RFP. The RFP does not specify what process the Department would have used to determine whose cost proposal would be the lowest or how the Department would determine the number of cost points to be awarded when there is a mix of per student prices and total prices. The Department had not determined which school districts would participate in the pilot program prior to the submission of the proposals and, as of the date of the final hearing, it was still not determined which school districts would participate. The deadline for receipt of proposals in response to the RFP was September 15, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. The Department received ten proposals in response to the RFP. The Department determined that six of the ten proposals submitted did not meet the mandatory requirements of the RFP. The Department's Selection Committee evaluated proposals submitted by NTI, US Netcom, TechRadium, and Roam Secure. Based on the RFP tabulation posted by the Department on September 29, 2006, NTI received the highest technical points of all the proposers. The technical points that were awarded by the Department's Selection Committee were as follows: NTI 89 points US Netcom 84.4 points TechRadium 80.6 points Roam Secure 67.4 Roam Secure's proposal was disqualified, and its cost proposal was not evaluated because it failed to receive an average rating of 70 or more points for its technical proposal as required by Section 6.1 of the RFP. By submitting a proposal, all proposers agreed to provide the services being procured through the RFP for a price of no more than $1,500,000 regardless of the districts selected by the Department or the number of students in such districts. TechRadium submitted a proposal to provide the requested services for $1.95 per student. US Netcom submitted a cost proposal of $3.00 per student and included a charge of $135.00/hr for [a]dditional customization [that] may be required to meet some of the application requirements." NTI submitted a cost proposal as follows: PRICE PER STUDENT Large District shall not exceed $2.60/per student Medium District shall not exceed $3.00/per student Small District shall not exceed $3.00/per student. SUPPORT FEE $1,000/per district $100/per site/per district The Department determined that NTI's cost proposal was non-compliant. The Department awarded TechRadium 20 cost points for a total score of 100.6 and awarded US Netcom 13 cost points for a total score of 97.4. At the final hearing, the Department represented that it now considered US Netcom's cost proposal as non-compliant, but, as of the date of the final hearing, the Department had not posted its intent to determine US Netcom's proposal non-compliant. In response to the RFP requirement that the proposers provide at least three references, "which demonstrate efforts comparable to the one described" in the RFP, TechRadium listed the Klein Independent School District, Northwest Indiana Educational Service Center, and Goose Creek CISD. The Klein Independent School District has a total population of less than 50,000 students. The software license agreement between TechRadium and the Klein Independent School district states that the authorized number of seats is 37,000.1 The Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District has a total student population of less than 25,000. The contract between TechRadium and Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District provides for 21,500 authorized seats. The contract between TechRadium and the Northwest Indiana Educational Service Center provides for 185 authorized seats, but TechRadium has provided services to approximately 90 individuals annually in the Northwest Indiana Educational Service Center. The Department reserved the right to contact the references listed in the proposals. None of the references of any of the proposers was contacted by Department during the evaluation process to verify the experience of the proposers with systems comparable to the one required by the RFP. The Department considered the listing of the references sufficient if the references included some school districts. On September 29, 2006, the Department posted its intent to award the contract arising out of the RFP to TechRadium. On October 4, 2006, NTI filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the Department's intent to award the contract to TechRadium. NTI filed its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on November 7, 2006. The protest was accompanied by a bond which satisfied the requirements of applicable statutes and the RFP. NTI is not contesting whether TechRadium has the infrastructure or capacity to fulfill the pilot program requested in the RFP. No funds allocated for School Safety/Emergency Preparedness in Specific Appropriation 116 were under contract on or before September 15, 2006. NTI was aware of Specific Appropriation 116 prior to the Department's issuance of the RFP. NTI did not object to the time limitations for opening bids or posting the rankings until it filed its formal written protest on October 13, 2006. NTI was aware of the time limitation of which it now complains more than 72 hours prior to the filing of its formal written protest. Prior to the issuance of the RFP, Michael Arnim, the Director of Sales at TechRadium, sent e-mails to school districts in Florida containing multiple untrue representations regarding the pilot project. Mr. Arnim had misunderstood some conversations he overheard at the TechRadium office in Texas and thought that TechRadium had been awarded the pilot project. He sent e-mails to some of the school districts stating that the Commissioner of Education could verify that TechRadium would be providing the notification systems for the pilot project and requesting the school districts to send letters of intent on the school districts' letterhead indicating the school districts wanted to participate. When the Department brought the e-mails to the attention of others at TechRadium, Mr. Arnim was reprimanded, and no further representations were made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the contract for an immediate response notification system pursuant to RFP 2006-01 to TechRadium. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 9th day of January, 2007.
