The Issue Whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-2.0020(4) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because of conflict with section 1008.34(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), or because the rule will be arbitrary and capricious in its application and administration.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Florida Association of Independent Charter Schools is a Florida non-profit corporation. The association is substantially affected by the proposed amended rule. Petitioner Aspira Raul Arnaldo Martinez Charter School is a charter school in Miami-Dade County and is currently serving 573 students. Its school grades over the past two consecutive years are: “D” for 2014-2015 and “D” for 2015-2016. If the proposed amended rule becomes effective and the school receives a school grade lower than “C” for 2016-2017, the school will not be eligible for the 2017-2018 Capital Outlay Appropriation. The school is substantially affected by the proposed amended rule. Petitioner Miami Community Charter Middle School is a charter middle school in Miami-Dade County currently serving 283 students. It is a Title I school serving 99 percent Free and Reduced Lunch. Its school grades over the past two consecutive years are: “D” for 2014-2015 and “D” for 2015-2016. If the proposed amended rule becomes effective and the school receives a school grade lower than “C” for 2016-2017, the school will not be eligible for the 2017-2018 Capital Outlay Appropriation. The school is substantially affected by the proposed amended rule. Respondent State of Florida Board of Education is “the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida . . . [with] the authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of law conferring duties upon it for the improvement of the state system of K-20 public education . . . .” § 1001.02(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent Florida Department of Education “act[s] as an administrative and supervisory agency under the implementation direction of the State Board of Education.” § 1001.20(1), Fla. Stat. “The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state . . . , and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system except for the State University System.” § 1001.10(1), Fla. Stat. Charter school capital outlay funding is the state’s contribution to capital funding for charter schools. A charter school’s governing body may use such funds for the following purposes: purchase of real property, construction of school facilities, purchase or lease of permanent or relocatable school facilities, purchase of vehicles, renovation, repair, maintenance of school facilities, and insurance for school facilities. § 1013.62(3), Fla. Stat. The charter school statute, section 1002.33, Florida Statutes, specifically authorizes the State Board of Education to adopt rules which address charter school eligibility for capital outlay funds. “The Department of Education, after consultation with school districts and charter school directors, shall recommend that the State Board of Education adopt rules to implement specific subsections of this section.” § 1002.33(28), Fla. Stat. One of the specific subsections of section 1002.33 is subsection (19), entitled “CAPITAL OULAY FUNDING.” Subsection (19) provides, in pertinent part: “Charter schools are eligible for capital outlay funds pursuant to s. 1013.62.” Each year, the Commissioner of Education is required to allocate charter school capital outlay funds, if any are appropriated by the Legislature, to eligible charter schools.1/ One of the eligibility criteria, which is at the center of the parties’ dispute, is set forth in section 1013.62(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes: “Have satisfactory student achievement based on state accountability standards applicable to the charter school.” The 2016 Florida Legislature amended section 1013.62, but it did not amend the statute regarding satisfactory student achievement. With regard to satisfactory student achievement, presently effective rule 6A-2.0020 provides: (2) The eligibility requirement for satisfactory student achievement under Section 1013.62, F.S., shall be determined in accordance with the language in the charter contract and the charter school’s current school improvement plan if the school has a current school improvement plan. A charter school receiving an “F” grade designation through the state accountability system, as defined in Section 1008.34, F.S., shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding for the school year immediately following the designation. On February 28, 2017, Respondents published a Notice of Proposed Rule, which proposed to amend rule 6A-2.0020. On March 22, 2017, the State Board of Education approved the proposed amendments to rule 6A-2.0020. As approved, the portion of the proposed rule which addresses satisfactory student achievement provides: (4) Satisfactory student achievement under Section 1013.62(1)(a)3., F.S., shall be determined by the school’s most recent grade designation or school improvement rating from the state accountability system as defined in Sections 1008.34 and 1008.341, F.S. Satisfactory student achievement for a school that does not receive a school grade or a school improvement rating, including a school that has not been in operation for at least one school year, shall be based on the student performance metrics in the charter school’s charter agreement. Allocations shall not be distributed until such time as school grade designations are known. For the 2016-2017 school year, a charter school that receives a grade designation of “F” shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, a charter school that receives a grade designation of “F” or two (2) consecutive grades lower than a “C” shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, a charter school that receives a school improvement rating of “Unsatisfactory” shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding. Proposed amended rule 6A-2.0020(4), if adopted, will provide the standard for what constitutes failure to meet satisfactory student achievement for purposes of receiving capital outlay funding. A school with a grade of “F” or two (2) consecutive grades lower than a “C” will be ineligible for funding. Proposed amended rule 6A-2.0020(4), if adopted, will allow a charter school with a single “D” grade to continue receiving capital outlay funds for the next fiscal year. On April 5, 2017, Respondents published a Notice of Change for a technical change for rule 6A-2.0020, referencing the following rulemaking authority for the rule: sections 1001.02(1), (2)(n); 1002.33(19), (28); 1013.02(2)(a); and 1013.62(5).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Florida High is a charter school created pursuant to section 1002.33(5)(a)2. Florida High is a public school. Pursuant to section 1002.33(5), FSU is the sponsor of Florida High, has executed a charter agreement with FSUS, and performs the duties listed in the charter agreement. Florida High was originally created as a developmental research school and receives public funding for its operations as set forth in section 1002.32(9). Florida High?s student admissions are governed in part by sections 1002.21 and 1002.33(10)(a). FSUS employees are public employees and are part of the Florida Retirement System. The Public Employees Relations Commission has certified a unit of FSUS? instructional personnel for purposes of engaging in collective bargaining. FSUS teachers are subject to the same instructional certification requirements as those for all of Florida?s public school teachers. In establishing Florida High as a lab charter school, FSU and FSUS drafted a charter agreement. The charter agreement was executed by both parties after holding a public hearing. FSUS adopted the Student Code of Conduct after holding a public hearing. FSUS is subject to Florida?s public records laws as set out in chapter 119. All meetings of FSUS? Board of Directors, unless otherwise exempt, are subject to the requirements of Florida?s Sunshine Act and must be noticed and open to the public. FSUS is subject to the class size requirements of Florida?s public school system. FSUS is required to administer the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test to all students, and the school is included in the state grading system for public schools and subject to specific repercussions by the Department of Education in the event of a failing grade. FSUS is required to report student assessment data to every parent of a student at the school, the school district, and its Board of Directors, and must maintain a website and post this data as well as follow the State Board of Education?s rules pertaining to public notice of school performance. Florida High?s Director files an annual financial disclosure of financial interest with the Florida Commission on Ethics. FSUS has the status of a “Local Education Agency” allowing it to receive federal funds. Jack Carswell was withdrawn from Florida High in part due to paragraph “k” of the Student Code of Conduct entitled “Withdrawal of Invitation”. Additional Facts Petitioner, Jack W. Carswell, was, until the 2013-2014 school year, a student at FSUS, having attended since 2002. Petitioners, Julie and Scott Carswell are Jack W. Carswell?s parents. Charter schools are public schools, and are part of the state?s program of public education. Charter schools may be sponsored by district school boards in the county over which the district school board has jurisdiction, or by a state university. Charter schools sponsored by a state university are in a separate category known as developmental research (laboratory) schools, or “lab schools.” With certain exceptions not applicable here, there is a limit of one charter lab school per state university. Respondent, FSUS, is a lab school created under the authority of sections 1002.32 and 1002.33. Respondent, FSU, is a state university, and is the sponsor of FSUS. The alleged unadopted rule at issue in this proceeding is found at section VI.K. of the Student Code of Conduct, which provides that: K. Withdrawal of Invitation/Expulsion When a student?s behavior is repeatedly inappropriate to others or continues to exhibit absolute disregard for the conditions of behavior set by the school, a meeting will be held and the Principal may recommend to the Director expulsion or permanent withdrawal of invitation of the student. The Principal/designee may recommend to the Director expulsion or withdrawal of invitation any student enrolled when his or her presence has or tends to substantially disrupt or interfere with the orderly educational process, destroys school property, endangers the health or safety of the student or others or infringes on the rights of others. (1) Withdrawal of Invitation FSUS is a school of choice that extends invitations on an annual or longer basis. The administration will decide the viability of a particular student?s invitation to attend FSUS at the end of each school year. Attendance and disciplinary issues will be considered when making these determinations. If it is decided that a particular student?s invitation should be withdrawn, then the Principal will make a written recommendation to the Director. Parents will be formally notified by the administration of a withdrawal of invitation for the next school year during the summer. Every attempt will be made to notify parents of the withdrawal of an invitation as early as possible in the summer so that arrangements for enrolling the student in their home school can be made. The Director may withdraw an invitation as prescribed in this Code or a parent or guardian may voluntarily withdraw the student. Documentation for withdrawal of invitation is a confidential record between the parents/guardian(s) and the school. Such documentation shall not be included in the student?s permanent record. A student cannot avoid expulsion by withdrawing from school. The only rulemaking authority granted by the Legislature in sections 1002.32 or 1002.33 is that conferred on the State Board of Education to adopt rules on how to form and operate a charter school and how to enroll in a charter school once it is created, which rules are to include a model application form, standard charter contract, standard evaluation instrument, and standard charter renewal contract. §§ 1002.33(21)(b)3.b. and 1002.33(27), Fla. Stat.1/ Charter school systems (see section 1002.33(20)(a)4., section 1002.33(20)(a)6., and section 1002.332) have been designated as “local educational agenc[ies]” for the limited purpose of receiving federal funds. § 1002.33(25), Fla. Stat. As further established in that section, however, “[s]uch designation does not apply to other provisions unless specifically provided in law.”
Findings Of Fact During 1978 and 1979, Petitioner was employed as a full-time teacher on an annual contract basis with the Leon County School Board. The principal at the Petitioner's school did not recommend him for reappointment for the 1979- 1980 school year. Petitioner, accordingly, was not reappointed. The Leon County School Board has adopted rules relating to the reappointment of teachers. School Board Rule 2.02(3)(a) provides: The building principal shall submit to the Superintendent for reappoint- ment, those members of his faculty recommended for reappointment. These reappointments, upon approval of the Superintendent, shall be recommended to the School Board at least six weeks prior to the close of the post school conference. In accordance with this rule, since Petitioner was not recommended for reappointment by his principal, he was not recommended by the superintendent and not reappointed by the School Board. Petitioner was not terminated from his position as a part of a School Board layoff. The Petitioner's job performance had been satisfactory. He was not recommended for reappointment because the school had three persons available to teach courses for which there were only two positions. The Petitioner was the least senior of the three persons and did not have tenure. Accordingly, he was not recommended for reappointment.
The Issue Whether the School Board lacked the delegated legislative authority to promulgate School Board Policy 2.57. Whether the challenged portions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate certain provisions of the charter school statute, section 1002.33, Florida Statutes, and State Board Rules, as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge Petitions. Whether the Innovative Rubric Policy 2.57 should be invalidated for enlarging, modifying, and/or contravening the charter statute and also the adopted State Board Education rule(s) and form(s). Whether the budget worksheet referenced in School Board Policy 2.57 is an unadopted rule because it was not attached or incorporated into School Board Policy 2.57 and/or was never specifically adopted by rule. Whether certain provisions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate section 1002.33(6)(h) as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge and Charter Petitions. Whether the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to section 1002.33(6)(h) and/or section 120.595, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Renaissance is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Renaissance currently operates six charter schools in the School District of Palm Beach County ("School District") pursuant to charters issued by the School Board: (1) Renaissance Charter School at Central Palm; (2) Renaissance Charter School at Cypress; (3) Renaissance Charter School at Palms West; (4) Renaissance Charter School at Summit; (5) Renaissance Charter School at Wellington; and (6) Renaissance Charter School at West Palm Beach. The School Board is the "sponsor" of the six schools operated by Renaissance in the School District for purposes of section 1002.33. The six schools operated by Renaissance are public schools, by virtue of their status as charter schools, under section 1002.33(1). Charter Schools USA serves as the education services provider or management company for all six of Renaissance's schools in the School District. On April 1, 2015, the School Board held a public workshop on the subject of charter schools, including proposed revisions to School Board Policy 2.57 ("Policy 2.57") entitled "Charter Schools." After the workshop, the School Board reviewed proposed revisions to the rule, Policy 2.57, at a noticed public meeting on April 22, 2015, and approved development of the policy. On May 27, 2015, at a noticed public meeting, the School Board approved adoption of revised Policy 2.57. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 required, among other things, that charter schools meet a standard beyond the status quo for "innovative learning methods," mandated that every charter contract contain a provision requiring 51 percent of the charter school governing board members to reside within Palm Beach County, and mandated that every charter contract contain a provision precluding new charter schools from being located in the vicinity of a district-operated school that has the same grade levels and programs. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also included an attached Innovative Policy Rubric 2.57, which contained the innovative definition and additional standards of innovation which charter school applicants must satisfy. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also required a completed budget worksheet in the format prescribed by the School Board from each charter school applicant. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 is the "Budget Template Tool" developed by the Florida Charter Support Unit. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 was not specifically identified in Policy 2.57 or attached thereto when it was adopted. The School District requires use of the Budget Template Tool in order to provide charter school applicants notice about everything that is required to prepare a budget and to ensure that the budget includes all necessary information. Charter school applicants who do not use the Budget Template Tool often fail to provide all of the information required to be included in the budget. The School District will review an applicant's budget even if it is not submitted using the Budget Template Tool. Failure to use the Budget Template Tool, in and of itself, will not be a factor in the rating of the "Budget" section of an application or the overall recommendation on an application. On August 3, 2015, Renaissance submitted its application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach to the District's Charter Schools Department. The application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach is the only charter application Renaissance has filed in the School District since the revised Policy 2.57 was adopted on May 27, 2015. On or around August 18, 2015, Renaissance requested that the Florida Department of Education ("FDOE") mediate its dispute over the amendments to Policy 2.57. The School Board declined FDOE's request to mediate the dispute. On September 8, 2015, Commissioner of Education Pam Stewart issued a letter to both Renaissance and the School Board confirming that the dispute could not be settled through mediation and providing Renaissance with permission to bring its dispute to DOAH. The District Superintendent recommended that the application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach be denied and placed it on the consent agenda for the School Board's November 4, 2015, public meeting, with one of the reasons being that the application "failed to meet indicators of School Board Policy 2.57 innovative rubric." At the November 4, 2015, meeting, after deliberation, the School Board voted to deny the application. In its letter dated November 13, 2015, denying the charter application of the proposed Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach, the School Board relied, in part, on Policy 2.57 as grounds for denial. On September 7, 2016, Petitioner filed a consolidated challenge that was amended on December 20, 2016. Petitioner is challenging the School Board's adoption and amendments of May 27, 2015, to Policy 2.57 in the Rule Challenge and asserting a violation of the flexibility granted to charter schools for the amended provisions in the Charter Petition.
The Issue The issues to be decided are: (i) whether Respondent's interpretation of section 1006.12, Florida Statutes——namely, that charter school operators such as Petitioner, rather than school boards and superintendents, are obligated to assign "safe-school officers" to police charter school facilities—— constitutes an unadopted rule; (ii) whether Respondent's form, which solicits information from charter schools regarding their safe-school officers, constitutes an unadopted rule; and (iii) whether Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for the assignment of safe-school officers to its charter schools constitutes inequitable treatment of charter schools as public schools.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Renaissance Charter School, Inc. ("RCS"), is a nonprofit Florida corporation that operates six charter schools located within the Palm Beach County School District (the "District"). The District is a constitutionally created political subdivision of the state whose geographic jurisdiction ("district region") is Palm Beach County.1/ As used herein, the term "district administration" will refer generally and collectively to the district school officers, officials, and employees through whom the District acts. Respondent The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Board"), is the collegial body established under the Florida Constitution to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the District.2/ Its members are elected to office by the voters of the District. The Board is the "sponsor" of RCS's charter schools. As a sponsor, the Board is empowered to exercise a form of regulatory jurisdiction over all charter schools within the District. The Board's sponsorship authority includes the power to deny the renewal of, or terminate, a charter agreement.3/ Although owned and operated by private interests, charter schools are public schools. As such, charter schools receive a portion of the public funds appropriated to educational purposes. These funds follow students, so that a particular charter school's share of available funds is based upon its student enrollment. Funding sources include, among other things, "categorical program funds" appropriated by the Florida Legislature to specific purposes, of which charter schools are entitled to a proportionate share. Financial resources flow to charter schools through their sponsors, which are required to make timely payments to the charter schools within their respective district regions. In an immediate response to the infamous mass shooting that took place at a high school in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act (the "Safety Act"), which was signed into law and took effect less than one month after the outrage, on March 9, 2018. Among other features, the Safety Act imposes new obligations regarding the stationing of "safe-school officers" ("SSOs") at all public school facilities. SSOs must be certified law enforcement officers except that, in circumstances not shown to exist in this case, regular employees who qualify for appointment as "school guardians" may also serve as SSOs. There is no dispute in this case that, under the Safety Act, one or more SSOs must be assigned to each charter school facility in the District, including RCS's six schools. The question is, whose duty is it to assign SSOs to charter schools? The Board's answer, clearly expressed in word and deed, is this: It's not our job; rather, the obligation falls to each charter school to arrange police protection for its own campus, as though each charter school were a school district unto itself. Indeed, failing that, the charter school will be in violation of the Safety Act. Accordingly, the Board has not assigned SSOs to the charter schools in the District.4/ Nor, apart from paying charter schools their respective proportionate shares of a categorical appropriation for school safety called the Safe Schools Allocation, which preexisted the Safety Act, has the Board provided any funds to cover the cost of police protection. By letter dated March 14, 2018, RCS's security director sent a letter to the District requesting that the Board provide a full-time SSO to each of RCS's charter schools in the district region. The District denied this request via a reply letter dated March 28, 2018, which stated that RCS would need to look to "the governing board of the six Renaissance Charter Schools operating in" Palm Beach County "for assistance [in] implementing the Safety Act or for providing the" SSOs. On April 4, 2018, the Board adopted a resolution declaring its opposition to the deployment of district employees as school guardians, thereby manifesting an intention to rely exclusively on school police or other certified law enforcement officers for the protection of students and school personnel. By this resolution, the Board exercised its discretion, under the Safety Act, to opt the District out of participation in the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program ("Guardian Program"). In August 2018, RCS submitted a request for mediation services to the Florida Department of Education ("DOE") pursuant to section 1002.33(7)(b). Specifically, RCS wanted DOE to mediate the ongoing dispute between RCS and the Board over the responsibility for assigning police officers to charter schools in accordance with the Safety Act. The Board refused to mediate. Thus, by letter dated August 27, 2018, the commissioner notified the parties of her decision that the dispute "cannot be settled through mediation" and "may be appealed to an administrative law judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings." Thereafter, RCS sent a letter dated September 12, 2018, to the School District Chief of Police asking to enter into negotiations with the School District Police Department for the provision of police officers to its facilities through a cooperative agreement. As of the final hearing, some four months later, RCS had received no response from the district administration. On or about October 3, 2018, district administrative staff prepared a survey using Google Forms that was sent by email to each charter school in the District with the subject line, "TIME-SENSITIVE REQUEST Re: Safe-School Officers." The email contained a link to an online form, titled "Charter School Safe-School Officers FY19" (the "Form"). Recipients were instructed to "complete this form by noon on Thursday, October 4, 2018." The survey consisted of six queries. Three were dual choice, yes/no questions that would be answered by selecting the appropriate radio button. Three others required the recipient to type in a short answer. The five questions that "required" an answer were marked with an asterisk. The form solicited the following information: Provide your school name.* [Your answer] Do you have a safe-school officer on your campus?* [Yes/No] Is the safe-school officer on your campus Monday – Friday during all school hours?* [Yes/No] If not, please identify the safe-school officer's schedule. [Your answer] Is the safe-school officer armed?* [Yes/No] Provide the name of the agency that employs the safe-school officer.* [Your answer] The Board maintains that completion of the survey was "optional" and that no charter school has suffered, or will suffer, any adverse consequences for failing to provide a timely response. The Board has not adopted the Form as a rule pursuant to the rulemaking procedure prescribed in the Administrative Procedure Act. More broadly, the Board has not adopted any rules implementing the Safety Act, nor has it codified the statement, which it has clearly embraced, that charter schools in the district region are required by law independently to arrange, on their own authority, police protection for their own campuses.
The Issue Whether the employment of Petitioner, Cornelius B. Frankliln, was improperly terminated by Respondent, The School Board of Seminole County, in the summer of 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, C.B. Franklin, began service with the School Board of Seminole County in the position of teacher in the 1951-52 academic year. In 1955, Petitioner was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Respondent in the position of teacher. Said continuing contract was in effect at all times relevant hereto. Petitioner was last employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as an Assistant Principal II at Sanford Middle School on an annual contract of employment, which terminated of June 10, 1989. During his employment at Sanford Middle School as an assistant principal from 1980 through 1988, Petitioner received satisfactory annual evaluations. In March, 1988, Owen McCarron, Assistant Superintendent, applied a "staffing formula" for each school in Seminole County. The staffing formula is not a school board rule but is a formula that the school board approves based upon student population to determine the number of teachers, secretaries, assistant principals, and others needed at each specific school. Mr. McCarron is responsible for the application of the formula. The application of the formula is not submitted to the school board for approval. Mr. McCarron made a mistake in the preparation of the staffing formula for 1988/89. The mistake made was that the number of assistant principals for Sanford Middle School would be reduced from two to one. Having been informed of a reduction, Dan Pelham, Principal, Sanford Middle School, determined that he would have to choose among the Assistant Principal II's employed and decided not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner. Owen McCarron discovered the mistake and notified Dan Pelham, sometime in late March, 1989. However, Dan Pelham chose not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner but rather to advertise the position as being vacant. When Mr. Pelham was notified the position was reinstated he considered it to be an "opportunity" to consider alternative persons for the position. Mr. Pelham's decision was based on Petitioner's performance as reflected by his annual evaluations and faculty input. Mr. Pelham held a conference with Petitioner on April 8, 1988, and Petitioner was advised that his contract as an assistant principal at Sanford Middle School would not be renewed for the school year 1988-89, because the School Board had reduced the number of assistant principal positions at Sanford Middle School from two (2) positions to one (1). Petitioner was offered a teaching position, under his continuing contract status, at Sanford Middle School as a peer counselor. The Respondent did not act to approve the reduction in positions, nor was the Respondent notified that Petitioner was not being recommended for reemployment. The School Board does not have a rule to govern how the decision is to be made upon a reduction in staff. At the time of the hearing and at all relevant times prior thereto, Petitioner held a valid Florida Department of Education certification in the teaching fields of health education, physical education and supervision and administration. On or about June 9, 1989, one day prior to the expiration of Petitioner's contract as Assistant Principal II, the Petitioner met with Dan Pelham and John Reichert, Director of Personnel. At that time, Petitioner was again advised by Mr. Pelham that he had not changed his decision not to renew Petitioner as an assistant principal, even though he had been advised that the position had been restored. The Petitioner was advised that he could apply for the vacant Assistant Principal II position but he would have to submit an application and a resume. The Petitioner responded that Dan Pelham was well aware of his qualifications, and that a copy of his resume was on file. At that time, Mr. Pelham offered Petitioner the peer counselor position, but salary was not discussed. Petitioner was given copies of documents containing the job information for the position of peer counselor. The position had not previously existed and had not been advertised. Petitioner was reassured that he had employment with the School Board as a teacher under his continuing contract status. At the same meeting, Mr. Reichert advised Petitioner to accept the teaching position, and at the same time apply for the assistant principal vacancy at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner applied for state retirement on June 27, 1988, and his retirement was accepted by the School Board of Seminole County thereafter, on July 13, 1988. Prior to the time Petitioner submitted his application for retirement, he was verbally offered a teaching position under his continuing contract status for the 1988-89 school year at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner is an experienced school administrator, holds a master's degree in [school] administration and supervision from Rollins College, in Winter Park, Florida. As a component of his master's degree requirement he had instruction in school law. Petitioner was aware that his employment as an assistant principal was on the basis of an annual contract of employment and that the position was not entitled to continuing contract status. Petitioner did not apply for the position of Assistant Principal II (secondary) at Sanford Middle School, after it was declared vacant and advertised (in the Spring of 1988), even though he was told that he would be considered for reappointment to the position if he did. Petitioner was aware that if he accepted the offered position of peer counselor his pay would resume in the Fall of 1988, along with all of the other teachers, and that he would be paid at the top of the teaching salary scale on the basis of his thirty (30) plus years of service. Petitioner did not respond, verbally or in writing, to the offered position of peer counselor subsequent to its offer and prior to his retirement. Mr. L. David Pelham, the principal of Sanford Middle School, was not obligated to reappoint Petitioner to the position of assistant principal, after June 10, 1988. However, Petitioner was entiled to a performance assessment prior to that date. Mr. Pelham recognized that Petitioner held continuing contract status and was entitled to be placed in a teaching position at Sanford Middle School for the 1988-89 school year and thereafter. Petitioner never discussed his decision to retire with Mr. Reichert or Mr. Pelham. Neither person had any communications with Petitioner after the June 9, 1988 meeting. Petitioner's annual contract of employment clearly put him on notice that neither he nor the school board owed the other any further contractual obligation after June 9, 1988 and that he had no expectancy of employment as an assistant principal after June 10, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the affirmative relief sought by the Petitioner should be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that each party should bear their own costs and attorneys fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2007 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 (1st three sentences), 2, 3, 4 (1st sentence), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (except the last 2 sentences) - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 4 (2d sentence), 9,12 - Rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11 (except sentence 2)-Rejected as subservient. Respondents Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 through 26 - Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Hughes Superintendent of Schools c/o Seminole County School Board 1211 Melonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert, Whigham & Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32772-1330 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as charged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educator Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795 and related rules. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent held Florida Educator’s Certificate 701877. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and world language- Spanish. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2015. Respondent has been a teacher for over 20 years. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Osceola County School District (OCSD) as a teacher at Michigan Avenue Elementary School (Elementary School). The allegations against Respondent arise from Respondent transporting an Elementary School student home after school one day. Tammy Cope-Otterson is the chief human resource officer for the OCSD. OCSD has a policy that requires school personnel to have approval from the principal before transporting a student. OCSD has a rule that requires written consent from a parent before a student can be transported in a private vehicle. Respondent admitted that he was aware that it was against school district rule to transport students in a personal vehicle without permission from the school district or the student’s parents. During the 2008-2009 school year, K.N. was a student in Respondent’s second-grade class at the Elementary School. While K.N. was in Respondent’s class, M.N. (K.N.’s mother) expressed that she was not fond of Respondent’s teaching methods. During the 2010-2011 school year, K.N. was ten years old and in fourth grade at the Elementary School. Following the completion of the 2010-2011 regular school year, K.N. enrolled in the Elementary School summer enrichment program, called the Spirit Program. Respondent served as a physical education instructor for the Spirit Program. When M.N.’s work hours changed, she and K.N. walked to and from the Elementary School to establish K.N.’s daily route. K.N. was allowed to walk or ride her bike to the Elementary School. M.N and K.N. lived on 10th Street, approximately 15 blocks from the Elementary School. On July 6, 2011, K.N. started to ride her bike to the Elementary School. During the ride, she noticed that a tire was becoming flat. K.N. stopped at a local convenience store and attempted to put air in the tire, to no avail. She walked the rest of the way to the Elementary School, parked her bike in the bike rack, and left a voice message for M.N. that she had arrived at the Elementary School. After the Spirit Program ended for the day on July 6, K.N. left her bike at school and started walking home via the established route. K.N. walked to the corner of Michigan and 10th Street and crossed over Michigan to be on the south side of 10th Street. Because it was a hot day, K.N. rested in some shade, a little south of the corner. Respondent stopped his car close to K.N. Respondent used his authoritative teacher voice and told K.N. to get in the car. K.N. got into Respondent’s car. Respondent admitted that K.N. got into his private car. He then drove a block south on Michigan Avenue, turned west on 11th Street, drove two blocks, turned right on Indiana Avenue, drove two blocks, turned east on 9th Street, drove one block, turned south on Illinois Avenue and stopped at the corner of Illinois Avenue and 10th Street. K.N. got out of Respondent’s car and walked to her home on 10th Street. Respondent testified that he wanted to let K.N. out on her home’s (north) side of the street so she could use the sidewalk to safely get home. There was no sidewalk on the north side of 10th street. K.N. credibly testified that as Respondent was driving her around, he placed his hand on her left thigh and rubbed it. K.N. was “upset,” “very uncomfortable,” and “wanted to crawl out of [her] own skin.” K.N. also credibly testified that Respondent asked if she wanted to go for ice cream, which she declined. Later that same day, Respondent was questioned about whether he had any interaction with K.N. after school on July 6. Initially Respondent denied any interaction with K.N., but later admitted that he had picked K.N. up and taken her home. Respondent did not take K.N. home, but merely dropped her off down the street from her home. Respondent’s selective memory about the events of July 6 lessens his credibility and his testimony is deemed unreliable. Respondent was arrested and criminally charged. While he awaited his court date, OCSD initially suspended and later terminated Respondent’s employment. There was extensive media coverage. Respondent was acquitted or found not guilty in the criminal matters. PRIOR CONDUCT On November 10, 2000, a Final Order was entered by the Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida (EPC) involving Respondent. Respondent was alleged to have allowed an ineligible player to participate in a soccer game. Respondent did not contest the allegations and entered a Settlement Agreement that was accepted by the EPC. Respondent agreed to be reprimanded, placed on probation for one year, refrain from violating any laws, fully comply with all district school board regulations, rules and State Board of Education rule 6B-1.006, pay $150 to defray the costs of his monitoring while on probation, and satisfactorily perform his assigned duties. The allegations in the 2000 matter are not similar to the allegations in the instant case, were resolved in 2000, and Respondent successfully completed his probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and that he did not violate section 1012.795(1)(d), and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission suspend Respondent’s educator certificate for five years, followed by five years of probation. The Education Practices Commission shall establish the terms and conditions of Respondent’s suspension and probation, which may include the cost of monitoring the suspension and probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 17th day of December,2015.
