The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 17, 2010, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner has employed Respondent since 2000, most recently as a full-time teacher at WHS during the day and as a part-time adult education teacher at HACC after regular school hours, teaching GED classes and alternative high school classes. When he began employment with Petitioner, Mr. Ward signed a memo indicating that he had read The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. By signing the memo, Mr. Ward acknowledged that he recognized all obligations and responsibilities placed on him. During the 2008-2009 school year, Mr. Ward contracted with Petitioner to teach part-time at HACC. The contract provided that Mr. Ward would teach after-school (or night) classes on Monday nights and Thursday nights. At HACC, the part-time instructors, such as Mr. Ward, were compensated on an hourly basis. Each part-time instructor completed a time sheet in writing by inserting the date worked, the start time of the work and the end time of the work. The part-time instructor also inserted the number of hours worked for the day and signed his or her name next to the entry for each day worked. Each part-time instructor also signed at the end of each pay period beneath the following certification, "I certify that this payroll sheet is accurate and correct, and that all hours reported were worked on my own time." In March of 2009, Ms. Doody, an assistant principal at HACC, reviewed certain payroll records in preparation for an upcoming audit. In reviewing Mr. Ward's time sheet for August of 2008, Ms. Doody noticed that Mr. Ward had signed in as having worked at HACC on certain nights when she knew there were no classes. Ms. Doody then reviewed Mr. Ward's time sheet for September 2008 and noted that Mr. Ward had signed in to work on a Sunday, a day on which no classes are held. Ms. Doody brought Mr. Ward's time sheets to the attention of Vincent Schiavo, who is also an assistant principal at HACC. Mr. Schiavo serves as the head administrator for the night school program at HACC. Mr. Schiavo confirmed Ms. Doody's findings that Mr. Ward's time sheets for August and September 2008 reflect work on days on which there were no classes at HACC. Mr. Schiavo then pulled all of Mr. Ward's original time sheets for the 2008-2009 school year beginning in August of 2008, and ending in April of 2009. Mr. Schiavo determined that based on Mr. Ward's time sheets, he was paid for hours he did not work during the following months of the 2008-2009 school Year: August (12.75 hours), September (30.5), October (30.25), November (31.25), December (27.25), and January (34.25).1 Mr. Ward's time sheets for the 2008-2009 school year reflect that he routinely claimed that he worked on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Mr. Ward worked as a substitute teacher for another teacher at HACC on Tuesday, January 27, 2009. He was not authorized to work on any other Tuesday or Wednesday during the 2008-2009 school year. Mr. Schiavo brought the matter to the attention of the principal of HACC, Linda Lopez. Ms. Lopez asked Mr. Schiavo to investigate further. After talking to some of the teachers who had classes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, Mr. Schiavo concluded that Mr. Ward had falsified his time sheets. Mr. Schiavo confronted Mr. Ward, but Mr. Ward was unable to provide an explanation for his time sheets. Mr. Ward left HACC and never returned to his teaching position at HACC. The matter was then referred to Petitioner's Special Investigative Unit (SIU), where it was assigned to Detective Marc Elias. On Friday, May 1, 2009, Mr. Elias met with Mr. Ward at WHS and served a Notice of Investigation which contained the following notice: This correspondence is provided as a formal notice of investigation into a complaint received in this office regarding allegations of theft of services while you were a part-time teacher at [HACC]. On Monday, May 4, 2009, Mr. Ward came to the SIU office and gave a statement to Mr. Elias. Prior to making the statement, Mr. Elias read to Mr. Ward his Miranda rights and explained them to him. Mr. Ward, under oath, stated that he understood his Miranda rights and gave a voluntary statement. Mr. Ward clearly, and unequivocally, admitted that he had knowingly and willfully included hours on his time sheets that he had not worked. Mr. Elias showed Mr. Ward the original time sheets and Mr. Ward admitted to each false entry.2 On May 8, 2009, Mr. Ward came to the SIU office and tendered to Mr. Elias a certified check in the amount of $5,800.40. When he tendered the check, Mr. Ward thought that the amount of the check equaled the amount of the overpayment. On May 8, 2009, Mr. Ward and two employees of the SIU signed and dated the following acknowledgment: This is to acknowledge receipt of a check in the amount of $5,800.40 received [sic] from Timothy Ward. Acceptance of these funds does not release you from future obligations that may be discovered as a result of this investigation. Additionally, acceptance of these funds does not waive our right to prosecute. Mr. Ward received compensation to which he was not entitled based on his timesheets. Mr. Ward entered on his time sheets a total of 232.47 hours he had not worked. Mr. Ward received a total of $4,252.66 for those hours he had not worked.3 Mr. Ward acknowledged to Mr. Elias that his actions constituted grand theft. Criminal charges were pending against Mr. Ward as of the date of the formal hearing. At the formal hearing Mr. Ward claimed that Mr. Elias had offered him a deal and that the statement he gave Mr. Elias was a result of that deal. Mr. Ward claimed that the deal provided for him to admit his wrongdoing in his statement, repay the money he had taken for work he had not performed, and forfeit his position at HACC. In exchange, Mr. Ward would not lose his teaching position at WHS, and he would not be criminally prosecuted. Mr. Elias denied the existence of such a deal. The undersigned finds Mr. Ward's claim of a deal to lack credibility while finding Mr. Elias's denial of such a deal to be credible. At the formal hearing, Mr. Ward claimed that he had worked some hours that are part of the total of 232.47 hours at issue in this proceeding as a substitute teacher at HACC. He was unable to identify those hours. This claim, which is contrary to the sworn statement Mr. Ward gave to Mr. Elias, lacks credibility and is rejected. Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on immorality, misconduct in office, and moral turpitude. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of incompetency, misconduct in office, or insubordination and, if so, whether Petitioner may suspend her without pay for 13 days.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner for 26 years, but not for the period of 1997-2007. For the most part, Respondent has served as a classroom reading teacher, but she has also served as a district-level behavior specialist over ten years ago. Starting in the 2006-07 school year and through the 2011-12 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a tenth grade reading teacher at Blanche Ely High School. Respondent has never received any discipline on her educator's certificate. Until the 2011-12 school year, Respondent had never received any adverse employment action from Petitioner. All of her evaluations during her tenure at Blanche Ely bore satisfactory marks. For the first two years after Respondent returned to teaching in Petitioner's schools, she was on annual contract, but she regained a professional service contract starting the 2008-09 school year. Ms. Baugh's first year as assistant principal at Blanche Ely was the 2011-12 school year. Ms. Baugh previously served as assistant principal at Deerfield Beach High School and, before that, served for seven years as a classroom reading and English teacher. Among Ms. Baugh's responsibilities at Blanche Ely during the 2011-12 school year was to supervise the reading and English departments. Ms. Baugh was thus Respondent's direct administrator. Ms. Baugh's first observation of Respondent's class took place on September 28, 2011. Ms. Baugh remained in the classroom for 30 minutes. Ms. Baugh observed deficiencies in three areas. First, as to instructional planning, Respondent had failed to write the learning objectives on the board, so the students lacked a clear understanding of what they were supposed to learn from the lesson. By failing to introduce the students to the material properly, Respondent allowed students to become confused as to their tasks in reading an interview in a textbook. Lastly, Respondent broke the class into pairs to write an interview, without first providing an example of how to write an interview or giving the students a chance to practice the task, and some students did not understand their respective roles in the small groups. Second, as to lesson presentation, only a few students engaged in an assigned activity because Respondent had failed to provide pre-reading assignments or to explain the purpose of the reading assignment. In reviewing an activity in which students were to determine their areas of weakness, Respondent asked three students to share their three most common mistakes, but failed to determine whether the students actually knew their areas of weakness. Lastly, Respondent failed to write on the board the vocabulary, learning objectives, and specific tasks for the lesson. Third, as to subject-matter knowledge, Respondent consistently misidentified the FCAT 2.0 Reading Category Four as "Informational Text and Technology." It is "Information Text/Research Process." Respondent did not resist Ms. Baugh's comments during the post-observation conference, which took place on October 3, 2011, although Respondent incorrectly insisted that the FCAT section to which she had referred would cover technology. During the conference, Ms. Baugh informed Respondent that she would receive assistance in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and subject-matter knowledge. Ms. Baugh warned Respondent that she would be placed on a Performance Development Plan, if she failed to remediate these deficiencies. One day within two weeks of the October 3 conference, Respondent was instructing her class when a student asked a completely off-topic question about sex. Unable to regain control of the class, Respondent floundered, and other students seized the opportunity to ask inappropriate questions. In the ensuing verbal melee, answering questions posed to her, Respondent told the students that she first had had sex in college and it had been physically painful. As surprising as Respondent's lapse in judgment in answering these questions about her personal sex life, her explanations for why she did so were even more surprising. When asked during cross-examination why she would answer such obviously impertinent questions, Respondent twice, sitting silently, responded by snapping her fingers repeatedly. As though she were overwhelmed by the attorney's question, Respondent resorted to this gesture to indicate that the rapid- fire questions themselves had overwhelmed her. When finally coaxed to substitute language for gesture, Respondent lamely explained that a teacher cannot ever be viewed as inappropriate when she is honest with a child. After a conference on October 22, during which Respondent denied having made any sexual comments in class, Ms. Baugh informed Respondent, somewhat cryptically, "to no longer engage in nonacademic discourse and off-topic discussion by desisting students' negative behaviors." Doubtlessly, though, Respondent understood that she was not to do this again. Ms. Baugh's second observation of Respondent's class took place on November 9, 2011. As Ms. Baugh entered the class, the students were loudly demanding to know what they were supposed to be doing in class. In response to one student, Respondent replied that they should write the words on the overhead projector. The lesson was devoted to acquiring vocabulary through morphemes. While students were working on the lesson, a loud dialog took place between a student sitting near Ms. Baugh and another student sitting across the classroom. Their comments included profanity and disparaging remarks, including one statement referring to the boy on the other side of the classroom as "fat boy." Other students were leaving the classroom, some with and some without passes. Still other students were laughing and talking. Few students were doing the assigned work, but Respondent never intervened. When later asked why she had not intervened, Respondent told Ms. Baugh she did not want the behaviors to worsen and the situation to escalate. After working on the morphemes assignment, the students turned their divided attention to another assignment. Respondent neither explained the purpose of the new activity, nor did she introduce the new activity to the students. Instead, Respondent told the students merely to turn to a certain page and begin to work. Ms. Baugh observed deficiencies in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and behavior management. As to the last, Ms. Baugh told Respondent to stop negative behaviors and impose consequences for misbehavior. By this time, Respondent was receiving assistance from Ms. Powell, another reading teacher, and a retired principal. Later, Ms. Baugh assigned a second reading coach to try to help Respondent. Ms. Powell actually had started helping Respondent in 2009, at least in group sessions given for the benefit of all of the reading teachers. Clearly, though, by the 2011-12 school year, Ms. Powell was providing much more in-depth, individual assistance to Respondent. For instance, following an observation on October 28, Ms. Powell provided Respondent with a detailed Teacher Support Narrative. As to one observation, Ms. Powell noted how Respondent's board was cluttered, bore incorrect lesson objectives, and reflected the use of obsolete student-grouping criteria. Ms. Powell told Respondent to visit the classrooms of three other teachers to see how a board should be organized. But, by their next meeting, Respondent had not done so. Increasingly, though, Respondent was losing control of her classroom. Nearby teachers would enter Respondent's classroom to try to help restore order. Respondent later explained that she did not summon security because she had done so on a couple of occasions early in the school year, but security had never responded. On at least two or three occasions, when a student swore openly in class, Respondent's "strategy" was to repeat the word, in asking what he had said, such as "did you say 'fuck?' or "did you say 'bitch?'" Predictably, the effect of the teacher's repeating the swear word did not de-escalate the situation. On December 12, 2011, one student repeatedly directed a profanity toward Respondent in class and then seized Respondent's personal computer to access a grade program to change his grade. When the other students became disruptive too, another teacher had to enter the classroom to restore order. Because Respondent had not contacted security, the other teacher did so. Eventually, Respondent issued a referral only for the profanity, not the seizing of the computer, although this act compromised confidential information of other students. By letter dated January 17, 2012, Ms. Baugh issued Respondent a written reprimand for failing to manage the behavior of her students and allowing an unsafe learning environment to ensue. Ms. Powell witnessed the aftermath of a more serious incident that took place on December 15 in Respondent's classroom. At the start of class, a boy struck a girl in the head with a bottle. Although Respondent wrote a referral on the boy, she allowed both students to remain in the class for the duration of the period. As Ms. Powell entered the classroom, the period had evidently just ended, and the boy had just left the classroom, but she saw the girl, crying, on her cellphone talking to someone. She was asking the person with whom she had called to come to school to pick her up because a boy was bothering her, and her teacher was not doing anything about it. Instead of comforting the child, Respondent was busily walking around the classroom picking up papers. In response to questions from Ms. Powell, Respondent confirmed what had happened. When Ms. Powell asked if Respondent had called security, she said she had not because she was straightening up the room. Respondent then told the girl to proceed to her next class, but Ms. Powell told her not to leave the safety of the classroom until they knew the location of the boy. The girl left the classroom anyway, and Ms. Powell trailed her to make sure that the boy did not approach her. Just at that moment, the security guard arrived, so Ms. Powell could return to the classroom and admonish Respondent for, among other things, cleaning up the room before addressing the needs of the student who had been struck by the bottle. Later, in a conference, Respondent told Ms. Baugh that she had not called security because the fight had taken place just outside her classroom. Respondent added that she also knew that the boy did not bother girls, only other boys. Unmoved by Respondent's so-called explanations, by letter also dated January 17, 2012, Ms. Baugh issued a written reprimand for Respondent's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to her health or safety. Ms. Baugh's third observation of Respondent's class took place on January 5. The observation generally noted the same deficiencies as had been noted in the preceding two observations. This time, students laid their heads on their tables, and Respondent did not make them pay attention. The classroom was noisy, as students laughed and talked without being redirected. Two students even had headphones over their ears. When later asked about these matters, Respondent told Ms. Baugh that she did not address these behaviors because she did not want to delay instructional momentum. As was the case with the second observation, Ms. Baugh noted deficiencies in instructional planning, lesson presentation, and behavior management. In February 2012, Respondent experienced serious problems in assigning correct grades and less serious problems in proctoring exams and handling secure exam materials. Eventually, Respondent managed to combine her deficiencies in teaching and classroom management by improperly assigning low academic grades based on misbehavior. By letter dated March 21, 2012, which was later superseded by a letter dated March 22, 2012, Ms. Baugh advised Respondent that she was recommending a three-day suspension for the above-discussed performance deficiencies, which covered a period starting with the beginning of the school year and ending on the date of a predisciplinary meeting that had taken place on March 2. This is the proposed action that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 12-1924TTS. Two more classroom-trashings occurred in the two days following the March 21 three-day suspension letter. First, on March 22, Ms. Powell found Respondent trying to use an overhead in a fully lighted room. Because the image was washed out, Ms. Powell suggested that they turn out the lights, but provide some light by opening the blinds shading the top of the windows. Ms. Powell and Respondent adjusted the lighting accordingly. Ms. Powell left the classroom to help another teacher. Returning to Respondent's classroom 30 minutes later, Ms. Powell could hear a loud commotion as she approached the classroom in the hall. She heard falling desks and chairs and loud shouting. As Ms. Powell entered the classroom, it was pitch black. Ms. Powell turned on the lights and saw that the students had trashed the classroom, again flipping desks and chairs and strewing the floor with papers and books. Ms. Powell asked what was going on, and Respondent explained, with no sense of urgency, that the students kept turning off the lights. When Ms. Powell asked Respondent to identify the misbehaving students, Respondent mentioned the name of one student. The student declared that he was innocent, but Respondent said, "oh, yes, it was you." When Ms. Powell began to call this student's parents, Respondent interrupted and said she was not sure that he was the perpetrator. Second, on the afternoon of Friday, March 23, Ms. Powell noticed students running from the computer lab toward the vending machine area. Ms. Powell approached Respondent, who had just escorted her class (or most of it) from the computer lab back to her regular classroom. Respondent denied that there had been any trouble. Unconvinced, Ms. Powell walked over to the computer lab and found overturned desks, flipped chairs, the phone off the hook and on the floor, and papers and books strewn along the floor. Respondent entered the room and denied that her students had done this trashing of the lab. This denial, which Respondent repeated at hearing, is specifically not credited. Additionally, after receiving the March 21 three-day suspension letter, Respondent continued to grade student work arbitrarily. On one occasion, also on March 22, Ms. Powell noticed that two students with the identical answers had received very different grades for their homework--one getting a 100% and one getting a 50%. When Ms. Powell asked Respondent about the discrepant grading, Respondent replied that she had concluded that the student with the 50% had cheated. Respondent reasoned that the first student to have handed in her assignment had obviously done her own work, but the other student must have copied. When Ms. Powell pointed out the fallacy of this thinking and asked if Respondent had bothered to speak to either of the students, Respondent admitted that she had not. On another occasion, within the same week, Respondent reduced a student's grade on an assignment because of classroom misbehavior--again, improperly using an academic assessment to deal with misbehavior. The student demanded to know whether Respondent had reduced her grade because she is black. Resorting to her earlier strategy of repeating profanity, Respondent sarcastically repeated the question by saying that she had reduced her grade because she was black. Outraged, the student then became loud and aggressive with Respondent. This statement of Respondent, who is white, was insensitive, at the least. As noted by the reference in Petitioner Exhibit 44, this statement came shortly after the racially charged killing of Trayvon Martin. This exhibit states that Respondent tried to justify her reducing the student's grade because the student had taken a piece of yellow paper from Respondent's desk, without permission, and had written on it: "RIP Trayvon Martin." This is a good example of Respondent's missing a crucial teachable moment, instead insensibly clinging to her "technique" of repeating the student's utterance--for what purpose is never clear. The evidentiary record reveals some evidence of insubordination, considerable evidence of incompetency, and overwhelming evidence of misconduct in office. In some cases allowing and in other cases creating conditions in her classroom the precluded learning and endangered the safety of the students entrusted to her, Respondent's deficiencies in classroom management--exacerbated by her incompetency in the form of inefficiency and incapacity--are so serious as to impair her effectiveness in the school system. Considering the acts and omissions covered by the two written reprimands solely for the purpose of applying the progressive discipline policy of Petitioner, the evidentiary record amply supports a 13-day suspension, without pay, for the misconduct in office and incompetence proved in these cases.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent, without pay, for 13 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Brian Engel, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis, and Schwamm, P. A. One Financial Plaza, 7th Floor 100 Southeast 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Dr. Tony Bennett Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Petitioner for Formal Proceedings and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Superintendent of Schools for the School District of Broward County, Florida, and is authorized to bring this proceeding. Respondent has been employed by the School Board of Broward County, Florida (School Board) since 1983, and was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, employed by the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent is a male who holds a Master's Degree in Social Work and is licensed in the State of Florida as a social worker. He is also certified as a teacher. Respondent has thirty years of professional experience and, other than the charges that are the subject of this proceeding, has never been subject to formal disciplinary proceedings. Respondent began working for the School Board in 1983 in the School Social Work and Attendance Department. Respondent's responsibilities included the development and implementation of training programs for teachers and other School Board employees. At the times pertinent to this proceeding two females, Maryanne Rafferty and Jeanne Hooper, were coworkers of Respondent in the School Social Work and Attendance Department. Respondent assisted in the initial orientation and training of Ms. Rafferty and of Ms. Hooper, who became employed by the School Board in September 1987 and in April 1989, respectively. The School Social Work and Attendance Department has a director and, for each of the three geographical areas within the school district, a child abuse coordinator. Ms. Rafferty, Ms. Hooper, and Respondent all held the job title of child abuse coordinator. All three shared a small office which required them to work in close proximity with one another. The office was approximately five feet wide and ten feet long and contained three study carrels that were used as desks, three filing cabinets, and stacks of materials. Respondent's desk and Ms. Rafferty's desk were approximately three feet apart and their chairs were no more than eighteen inches apart. Respondent was the team or component leader for the child abuse coordinators, but he was not the supervisor of either Ms. Rafferty or Ms. Hooper. The three child abuse coordinators, Ms. Rafferty, Ms. Hooper, and Respondent, reported directly to Carol Smith, who was the Director of the School Social Work and Attendance Department. Ms. Rafferty was promoted to the position of child abuse coordinator in November 1989, but she had known Respondent since 1987 when she became employed by the School Board. Following her promotion in November 1989, Respondent made remarks to Ms. Rafferty on several occasions which contained double entendres of a sexual nature or which contained sexually explicit statements. Respondent considered these remarks to be humorous, but Ms. Rafferty objected to these remarks and became uncomfortable in Respondent's presence. The most flagrant comment made by Respondent to Ms. Rafferty occurred while she was eating a large carrot. Respondent stated that he wished that the carrot Ms. Rafferty was eating was his penis. On several occasions, Respondent positioned himself so that his body would come in contact with Ms. Rafferty. On one occasion, while she was in the process of seating herself in her office chair, Respondent placed his hand on her chair with his palm up so that Ms. Rafferty's buttocks came in contact with his hand. Ms. Rafferty took offense at this incident and the already tense relationship between them became more strained. From the time of her employment as a child abuse coordinator in April 1989, Respondent, on several occasions, made inappropriate physical contact with Ms. Hooper to which she objected. This contact consisted of unwanted touching, hugging, and the placing of his arms around her. In November 1989, an incident occurred during which Respondent patted Ms. Hooper on her buttocks while she was bending over at her filing cabinet. Ms. Hooper took offense at this behavior and strongly advised Respondent against touching her in the future. Ms. Hooper filed a written complaint about the November 1989 incident following the incident involving Respondent and Ms. Rafferty in February 1990. Respondent has a volatile personality and has a history over the course of his employment with the School Board of loud, argumentative, confrontational behavior directed against coworkers who disagree with him. He tends to use a lot of verbiage and he frequently gesticulates while talking. He was persistent in getting his point of view across and he engaged in long orations. During the course of his employment, Respondent was warned on several occasions to refrain from such behavior. His evaluation for 1983-1984 school year cited "... inappropriate behavior which alienates him from staff.." and that assistance was given to him to increase "... his awareness of his behavior, suggesting alternate means for appropriate handling of interpersonal situations ...". The same evaluation noted that "Growth in areas of positive inter-relationships with peers and other professionals has been observed. He is also exhibiting self- control behaviors more consistently and inappropriate behaviors have been significantly reduced ...". In December 1986, Ms. Smith reprimanded Respondent by a written memorandum regarding inappropriate behavior involving loud confrontations with a coworker. This memorandum, a copy of which was provided to Respondent, contained the following statements: This is not Mr. Caswell's first involvement in staff conflict. There have been several incidents (most [sic] undocumented) in which he has acted in a loud, talkative, argumentative and provocative manner, often causing conflict and disruption in departmental meetings and in the completion of his assigned work. My concern regarding his inappropriate behavior was first placed in writing on June 7, 1984. Following that evaluation, Mr. Caswell agreed to seek professional counseling regarding his impulsive behavior and lack of appropriate behavioral control. He did follow through with this suggestion and during the 1985-86 school year, his behavior was under much better control. I feel that our Department can no longer contain Mr. Caswell's unacceptable behaviors of initiating conflicts, loud and boisterous talking and endless time loss in protracted discussions in individual, small and large group meetings. Mr. Caswell has on several occasions apologized for his behavior with a promise not to repeat it, but it is evident he continues to have problems in this area. Because I feel he cannot on his own control this behavior, I will make a condition of his continued employment in this Department to be a consultation Process 9000. His evaluation for the 1987-1988 school year contained the following observation: During this school year, Mr. Caswell has generally demonstrated improvement in the areas of reducing negative and argumentative behavior. He is displaying more self-control and is continuing to develop skills in the area of team building and work production. During the 1989-1990 school year, Respondent exhibited argumentative and confrontational behavior on several occasions during staff meetings. On one occasion, during a lunch meeting at a restaurant, Respondent became irate and used loud, profane language directed against Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper. On February 28, 1990, Ms. Rafferty, Ms. Hooper, and Respondent met with Ms. Smith to schedule a meeting that was to be held March 5, 1990, and to discuss the statistical information that the three coordinators would present to Ms. Smith. Respondent wanted the meeting to be held in the morning to accommodate his schedule. During the meeting of February 28, 1990, Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper agreed to having the meeting for March 5, 1990, scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Following this meeting, Respondent and Ms. Rafferty returned to the office they shared with Ms. Hooper. Ms. Hooper had business elsewhere and did not return to the office with them. Following this meeting on February 28, 1990, Respondent became enraged because he felt that Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper had not supported his efforts to schedule the meeting for the morning of March 5, 1990, and because he was concerned about the statistical information Ms. Smith wanted them to provide on March 5. Respondent owns a Boy Scout pocket knife which he used for a variety of purposes, such as opening letters and cleaning his fingernails. This knife has a bottle opener, a can opener, a leather punch and a flat blade that is approximately three inches long. On February 28, 1990, while only he and Ms. Rafferty were present, Respondent took this knife from his pocket, opened the blade of the knife, held this knife inches from her face, called her a "son of a bitch" and stated in a threatening manner: "If you give her (Carol Smith) what she wants, you'll be slitting your own throat". At the time of this incident, Respondent was irate. Ms. Rafferty felt threatened and left the room because she was afraid. 1/ Following this incident, Ms. Rafferty went to the secretarial area and became quiet and withdrawn. Some minutes later, Respondent, who had calmed down, came into that same area and said to Ms. Rafferty in Ms. Hooper's presence: "I suppose now you're going to accuse me of threatening you". Ms. Rafferty then left that area and went into the hall where she advised Ms. Hooper and Laura Holt, another coworker, what had happened. Ms. Rafferty and Respondent separately left school. Ms. Hooper and Mrs. Holt advised Ms. Smith of the incident, who immediately telephoned Ronald Wright, the School Board's Director of Professional Standards, to advise him of the incident. Mr. Wright was not available when Ms. Smith called, but when he returned her call later that day he told her to refer the matter for investigation by the School Board's Special Investigative Unit. Ms. Smith followed Mr. Wright's advise by referring the matter for investigation. The following day when Ms. Rafferty returned to school she was advised by Joseph Reese, Ms. Smiths' assistant, to report the incident. Thereafter, Ms. Rafferty formally reported the incident to Ms. Smith. On March 5, 1990, the previously scheduled meeting with Ms. Smith, Ms. Rafferty, Ms. Hooper, and Respondent took place. During this meeting, Respondent was hostile towards Ms. Rafferty and was argumentative and confrontational. Respondent became upset because Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper had prepared typed statistical reports for submission to Ms. Smith, but they had not informed Respondent that they would be submitting typed reports. Respondent had a handwritten report and felt that Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper had deliberately made him to look unprofessional and that they were attempting to undermine his position. Following the meeting, Ms. Hooper, Ms. Rafferty, and Respondent returned to their office and Respondent continued his loud, argumentative behavior. Respondent regained his composure after Ms. Smith came into the office and calmed him down. Respondent has, during his tenure with the School Board, made valuable contributions to his department and has earned a reputation as being very knowledgeable as to the law and as a very capable trainer of other social workers. Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has however, been impaired by his behavior involving Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper. Respondent frequently placed his arms around coworkers, both male and female, and he occasionally hugged them. When Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper objected to this conduct by Respondent, he stopped. On two occasions, Respondent asked Ms. Rafferty if she was interested in seeing him socially. When she declined the invitation, Respondent did not pursue the matter. At the time Respondent asked Ms. Rafferty out, they were both single. Although Respondent once engaged in flirtatious behavior with Ms. Hooper, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent solicited an off-duty relationship with her or with any other coworker. On several occasions, Respondent questioned whether he, Ms. Rafferty, and Ms. Hooper could legally require certain information Ms. Smith had requested because, in his professional opinion, the requested information was confidential. Respondent advised Ms. Rafferty and Ms. Hooper of his concerns and advised them not to incorporate the confidential information in their reports until the confidentiality question was resolved. Although Ms. Smith had requested this information, she had not reduced this request to writing, nor had she framed this request as an order or as a formal directive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which terminates the professional services contract between Burton A. Caswell and the School Board of Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of May, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 13th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of September, 2002.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment with the school district.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional services contract as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) consultant at Haines City High School (HCHS). In her 20 years at HCHS, Respondent has also served as an ESE teacher, an English teacher, and a Reading teacher. Prior to this case, Respondent has not been disciplined. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was assigned to a small office that she shared with the HCHS football coach, Ron Johnson, and another ESE teacher, Selma Gandy. In January 2014, a mathematics teacher, Sue Allemang, retired and moved to Virginia. Ms. Allemang and Respondent knew one another, and Respondent had Ms. Allemang’s telephone number. When spring football started that year, Coach Johnson asked Respondent to telephone Ms. Allemang to see if the mathematics teacher would agree to change a student’s grade that had been given in the fall term. According to Ms. Allemang, Respondent telephoned her and asked if the grade could be changed (presumably to improve the student’s grade point average). After a brief conversation, Ms. Allemang agreed that the student’s grade could be improved. Ms. Allemang’s agreement to raise the grade extended to one student. Thereafter, Respondent completed a grade change form for the student, indicated that Ms. Allemang had authorized the change, and signed the form before delivering it to Angela Allen, the terminal operator at HCHS, who was responsible for inputting data into the HCHS system. Although Ms. Allemang recalled authorizing changing a grade for one student, Respondent executed two forms for two of Ms. Allemang’s students so that grades could be improved. Between January 13 and May 7, 2014, Respondent delivered 15 grade change forms for students who were on the football team. In almost every instance the changes increased the students’ grades and would have thereby increased their grade point averages. Respondent did not feel that she had done anything wrong in delivering the grade change forms. She maintained that she was simply a messenger delivering forms as a courtesy to others because she was going to the office. Such testimony has not been deemed credible or persuasive. Respondent knew or should have known that, absent her conduct, the grades would not have been changed at the times they were. In fact, Respondent was the facilitator of the grade change for Ms. Allemang’s student because had she not initiated the telephone conversation there would have been no basis for the change. As it was, Respondent knew or should have known that the student whose grade was changed had done no additional work to merit the change as Ms. Allemang no longer taught at the school. Further, Respondent did not represent to Ms. Allemang that additional work (supervised by Respondent or another teacher) would support the grade change. Other teachers who have approved grade changes have done so based upon additional work required of the student. In this case, two of Ms. Allemang’s students did not perform additional work to support the grade changes. Moreover, Ms. Allemang only authorized the change for one student. The record established that Respondent completed grade change forms for two of Ms. Allemang’s students. Another teacher no longer employed at HCHS authorized a grade change for one of the football players. When Ms. Allen questioned Respondent about that change, Respondent claimed that Coach Johnson had obtained the signature from the former teacher to support the change. Whether additional work was required to support the grade change is unknown. During a normal school year, Ms. Allen processes grade change forms for approximately six students. In this case, Respondent submitted 15 grade change forms to Ms. Allen. One of the physical education teachers at HCHS was asked to change grades for athletes. Coach Johnson gave the teacher a list of the athletes needing improved grades. Before the teacher would agree to the changes, the students were required to complete extra work. Some ran laps or did other physical activities for extra credit. Some wrote essays or did other academic work. The teacher did not change the grades absent extra credit work done by the students. There was not an ongoing “culture of grade changing” at HCHS. Coach Johnson sought grade changes presumably to allow football players to be eligible to participate. Respondent assisted in obtaining the grade changes and should have known that grades should not be improved absent bona fide justification for the change. Respondent knew or should have known that changes without justification were inappropriate. Respondent demonstrated a lack of remorse or comprehension of the gravity of her behavior. Respondent’s willful indifference to the fundamental concept of how grades must be earned calls into question her education ethics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Polk County School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct and imposing such penalty as may be appropriate up to, and including, termination of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of April, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19, North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1538 (eServed) Donald H. Wilson, Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Kathryn LeRoy, Superintendent Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether the allegations contained in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are true, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She first worked as a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School. When Morse closed she was transferred to Taylor Elementary School, a new school. She continued teaching at Taylor Elementary School until January 19, 2005. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 530568. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or who have a physical handicap. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities she is also County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. 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. The State Board of Education's mission includes the provision of certification requirements for all school-based personnel. The Education Practices Commission is appointed by the State Board of Education and has the authority to discipline teachers. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crisis Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction- Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention when possible. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, an adult who lies upon a child could prevent a child from breathing. CPI holds are not to be used for punishment. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. The alleged chain incident Ms. Amanda Colleen Fuquay taught with Dr. Whalen when both of them were teachers at Gladys Morse Elementary School. Ms. Fuquay, like Dr. Whalen, taught exceptional children. Ms. Fuquay's first teaching job after receipt of her bachelor's degree was at Morse Elementary School. At the time Ms. Fuquay began teaching, Dr. Whalen was also a teacher at Morse. The record does not reveal when Ms. Fuqua initially began teaching at Morse, but it was after 1997 and before August 2002, when Morse Elementary merged into the new Taylor Elementary School. During Ms. Fuqua's first year of teaching she entered Dr. Whalen's class. She testified that upon entry she observed a male student chained to a chair at his desk. The chain may have been about the size of a dog choker. She said that the chain ran through the student's belt loop and around the chair. Ms. Fuqua said that she inquired of Dr. Whalen as to the reason for the chain and she replied, in perhaps a joking way, that the student wouldn't sit down. The evidence does not reveal when this occurred or even in what year it occurred. The evidence does not reveal the name of the alleged victim. The evidence does not reveal the victim's response to being chained to the chair. The evidence does not reveal whether Dr. Whalen chained the child or if someone else chained the child or if it just appeared that the child was chained. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and she testified at the hearing. She did not mention this incident. Ms. Fuqua could not discern if this was a serious matter or whether it was some sort of a joke. She said, "I didn't have a clue." Ms. Fuqua failed to report this incident because she was new to teaching and she had not, "learned the ropes." Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she had ever chained a student to a chair, and specifically denied that she had done it in 1999, which is within the time frame that Ms. Fuqua could have observed this. Moreover, she specifically denied having chains in her classroom. The Commissioner has the burden of proving the facts in this case, as will be discussed in detail below, by clear and convincing evidence. Undoubtedly, Ms. Fuqua saw a chain of some sort that appeared to be positioned in such a manner as to restrain the unidentified student. However, the lack of any corroborating evidence, the paucity of details, and the denial of wrong-doing by Dr. Whalen prevents a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of maltreatment. The alleged incident involving S.A. On August 13, 1998, at Morse, Ms. Kriedler was called by Dr. Whalen to her class. When Ms. Kriedler entered the class she observed Dr. Whalen holding S.A.'s arms to his desk with her right hand and holding the hair of his head by her left hand. She stated to Ms. Kriedler that, "If he moves a quarter of an inch, I'm going to rip the hair out of his head." Dr. Whalen also related that S.A. had kicked her. Dr. Whalen also said to S.A., in the presence of Ms. Kriedler, "Go ahead and kick me because I can't feel it." This referred to her handicap. By this time S.A. was motionless. After a discussion with Ms. Kriedler, Dr. Whalen released S.A. and Ms. Kriedler took him to her classroom. Subsequently, Ms. Kriedler requested that he be transferred to her class and that request was granted. Ms. Kriedler reported this incident to Shona Murphy, the Taylor County School District Exceptional Student Education Administrator. Ms. Murphy stated that Ms. Kriedler reported to her that that S.A. was flailing about and kicking when Dr. Whalen threatened to pull his hair. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide on August 13, 1998. She recalls S.A. and described him as a troubled young man who was full of anger. He would sometimes come to school appearing disheveled. He had blond hair that was usually short. Ms. Whiddon has observed him lash out at others with his hands. Ms. Whiddon was not present in the classroom when the incident described by Ms. Kriedler occurred. However, upon her return to the classroom, Dr. Whalen informed her that she had grabbed S.A. by the hair until she could control him. Ms. Murphy discussed the incident with Principal Izell Montgomery and Superintendent Oscar Howard in late August 1998. As a result of the discussions, these officials decided to video-tape Dr. Whalen's classroom, and to take no other action. Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she grabbed S.A.'s hair. Despite Dr. Whalen's assertion to the contrary and upon consideration of all of the evidence, it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Whalen grabbed and held S.A.'s hair and threatened to pull it out. Grabbing a student's hair is not an approved CPI hold. However, at the time this occurred Dr. Whalen was not required to use CPI methods. Grabbing a student's hair is generally unacceptable conduct unless, for instance, it is done in self- defense, or in order to protect the student or others. It has been not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that grabbing S.A.'s hair was impermissible. Dr. Whalen told Ms. Kriedler that S.A. had been kicking her. This statement raises the possibility that the action was initiated as a self-defense measure. When one considers that Dr. Whalen has limited mobility, and that her aide was not present, she was permitted to take reasonable actions to defend herself. Grabbing a student's hair may have been reasonable under the circumstances and, in the event, the record does not provide enough evidence to permit a determination. The video-tape of November 20, 2002 A video-tape, that included audio, and which was made part of the record of the case, portrays events on the morning of November 20, 2002. The video-tape was brought to the attention of the school administration by a parent who had received the video-tape from Dr. Whalen. The picture quality of the video is satisfactory but the audio is derived from a microphone near Dr. Whalen's desk. Therefore, it is clear that the microphone did not record all of the words spoken in the classroom at the time and date pertinent. Accordingly, facts found as a result of viewing the video-tape are limited to those which are clearly depicted by it. The School Board had discussed the wearing of apparel with representations of the Confederate battle flag on them in a meeting immediately prior to November 20, 2002. Early in the morning of November 20, 2002, there was a discussion with regard to the School Board deliberations among some of Dr. Whalen's students. The discussion came close to degenerating into physical conflict. This was reported to Dr. Whalen's aide, Ruth Ann Austin. It was further reported that some students called some of their fellow students "rebels," and others called other students "Yankees" and "gangsters." Assistant Principal Verges visited the classroom at the beginning of the school day, at Dr. Whalen's request, and he explained the matters discussed at the School Board meeting. Upon the departure of Assistant Principal Verges, Dr. Whalen unleashed a torrent of criticism upon her students addressing the subject of name-calling. Dr. Whalen spoke to the students in a loud and threatening tone of voice. While delivering this tirade, Dr. Whalen traveled to and fro in her motorized wheelchair. The video-tape revealed that this wheelchair was capable of rapid movement and that it was highly maneuverable. The lecture was delivered in a wholly confrontational and offensive manner. The lecture continued for more than 30 minutes. This behavior was the opposite of the de-escalating behavior that is suggested by CPI. However, Dr. Whalen had never been directed to employ CPI. S.O. was a student in Dr. Whalen's class and was present on November 20, 2002. He was a student of the Caucasian race who had, prior to this date, displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward Assistant Principal Verges and toward Ruth Ann Austin, Dr. Whalen's aide. Some on the school staff described him, charitably, as "non-compliant." S.O. was quick to curse and had in the past, directed racial slurs to Ms. Austin, who is an African-American. Because of his propensity to kick those to whom his anger was directed, his parents had been requested to ensure that he wear soft shoes while attending school. On November 20, 2002, S.O. was wearing cowboy boots and a Dixie Outfitters shirt with the Confederate battle flag emblazoned upon the front. Subsequent to Dr. Whalen's tirade, S.O. slid out of his chair onto the carpeted floor of the classroom. Dr. Whalen instructed him to get back in his chair, and when he did not, she tried to force him into the chair. She threatened S.O. by saying, "Do you want to do the floor thing?" When S.O., slid out of his chair again, Dr. Whalen forcibly removed S.O.'s jacket. Thereafter, Ms. Austin approached S.O. Ms. Austin is a large woman. Ms. Austin removed S.O.'s watch and yanked S.O.'s boots from his feet and threw them behind his chair. Dr. Whalen drove her wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair with substantial violence. Thereafter, Ms. Austin removed S.O. from the classroom. Removing S.O.'s jacket, watch, and boots was acceptable under the circumstances because they could have been used as weapons. The act of driving the wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair, however, was unnecessary and unhelpful. A memorandum of counseling was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey on December 2, 2002, which addressed her behavior as portrayed by the video-tape. The S.O. and C.C. incidents Reports from time to time were made to Assistant Principal Verges, and others, that Dr. Whalen engaged in an activity commonly referred to as "kissing the carpet." This referred to physically taking children down to the floor and sitting on them. During April 2003, Dr. Whalen reported to Assistant Principal Verges and Ms. Kriedler that she had recently put two students on the carpet. During the four years Mr. Verges was Dr. Whalen's Assistant Principal, Dr. Whalen reported a total of only about four instances of having to physically restrain students. Dr. Whalen has never told Mr. Verges that she has regularly restrained children on the floor. Dr. Whalen's agent for using physical restraint is her aide, Ms. Austin, because Dr. Whalen's handicap does not permit her to easily engage in physical restraint. Ms. Austin physically restrained children five or six or seven times during the four years she was Dr. Whalen's aide. On four occasions a child actually went to the floor while being restrained by Ms. Austin. One of the two students who were reported to have been physically restrained during the April 2003, time frame was S.M. During this time frame S.M. became a new student in Dr. Whalen's class. S.M. was unhappy about being placed in a "slow" class. It was Ms. Austin's practice to meet Dr. Whalen's students when they exited the school bus in the morning. Accordingly, she met S.M., the new student. S.M. was "mouthy" when she exited the bus and would not get in line with the other children. S.M. and the rest of the children were taken to the lunch room in order to procure breakfast. While there, S.M. obtained a tray containing peaches and other food and threw the contents to the floor. Ms. Austin instructed S.M. to clean up the mess she made. S.M. responded by pushing Ms. Austin twice, and thereafter Ms. Austin put S.M. in a basket hold. S.M. struggled and they both fell on the floor. Ms. Austin called for assistance and someone named "Herb" arrived. Herb put a basket hold on S.M. while Ms. Austin tried to remove S.M.'s boots because S.M. was kicking her. S.M. was almost as tall as Ms. Austin and was very strong. At the end of the day, Ms. Austin was trying to "beat the rush" and to get her students on the school bus early. She was standing in the door to the classroom attempting to get her students to form a line. She and Dr. Whalen had planned for S.M., and another student, with whom she had engaged in an ongoing disagreement, to remain seated while the rest of their classmates got on the bus. While the line was being formed, S.M. and her fellow student had been directed to sit still. Instead, S.M. rose, said that she was not going to wait, and tried to push by Ms. Austin. Ms. Austin responded by asking her to sit down. S.M. said she would not sit down and pushed Ms. Austin yet again. Ms. Austin tried to restrain her and told the other students to get to the bus as best as they could because she was struggling with S.M. and was having substantial difficulty in restraining her. Ms. Austin asked for help. She and S.M. fell to the floor. S.M. was on the carpet. Dr. Whalen slid from her wheelchair and attempted to restrain the top part of S.M.'s body. Ms. Austin held the bottom part of her body and attempted to remove her boots with which S.M. was kicking. S.M. was cursing, screaming, and otherwise demonstrating her anger. Dr. Whalen talked to her until she calmed down. They then released S.M. The actions taken by Ms. Austin and Dr. Whalen were appropriate responses to S.M.'s behavior. The S.M. affair precipitated the C.C. incident. C.C. was a large male student who had no history of violence. C.C. teased S.M. about having been "taken down" by Ms. Austin. C.C., teasingly, told Ms. Austin, that he did not think Ms. Austin could take him down. Ms. Austin said she could put him in a basket hold which she did. C.C. challenged Ms. Austin to put him on the floor and she did. This was considered a joke by C.C. and Ms. Austin. This incident was nothing more than horseplay. As the result of the comments made by Dr. Whalen, addressing the S.M. and C.C. incidents, to Ms. Kriedler and to Assistant Principal Verges, a memorandum issued dated April 7, 2003. It was signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey. The memorandum recited that Dr. Whalen's comments raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video-taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The J.R. incident On January 19, 2005, J.R. was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. On that date, J.R. was a ten-year-old female and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom only since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student on an occasion when he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered it and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen, who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her on the back. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical, parallel, and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has many years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed Julia's back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten on the playground under the circumstances described in this report. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks could be consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or would like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding of the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Because proof by clear and convincing evidence is required in this case, it is not found that Dr. Whalen bit J.R. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is clear that for many months Dr. Whalen's classroom was video-taped and until the November 20, 2003, incident, none of her actions caused attention to be drawn to her teaching methods. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. Any actions taken by Dr. Whalen were taken in permissible self-defense. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Miscellaneous Findings Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. From approximately 1997, when the S.A. hair pulling allegedly occurred, until December 2, 2002, not a single document was created indicating dissatisfaction with Dr. Whalen's teaching methods. Dr. Whalen's normal voice volume is louder than average. She would often elevate her already loud voice, intimidate students and pound on her desk. The aforementioned activities are not part of CPI. On the other hand, these methods worked for Dr. Whalen for 20 years. She was not required to use CPI until subsequent to the memorandum of April 7, 2003. There is no evidence that she failed to use CPI once she was required to employ it. As revealed by the testimony of Dr. Whalen, Ms. Kriedler, Assistant Principal Verges, Ms. Austin, and others, some of these children would strike, kick, bite, throw objects, curse, and hurl racial epithets at their teachers. Teaching some of these children was difficult.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, that she be issued a reprimand, that she be placed on probation as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.008, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 15th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner should discharge Respondent from her employment because of misconduct, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty that impaired Respondent's effectiveness as Petitioner's employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of St. Johns County, Florida. Until September 12, 1996, Petitioner employed Respondent as a non-instructional employee. Respondent was a janitorial custodian. Petitioner requested numerous employees, including Respondent and eight other custodians, to work on Saturday, August 24, 1996, at Nease High School. The purpose was to prepare the campus for the upcoming school year. Mr. Jody Hunter, the coordinator of school-based maintenance and custodial services, asked all nine custodians, including Respondent, to stop what they were doing and to immediately remove all of the empty boxes from the classrooms. The boxes needed to be outside the buildings so that they could be collected for disposal and so that furniture could be set up in each classroom. The crews in charge of collecting and disposing of the boxes and those in charge of furniture set-up were on precise schedules. The other maintenance tasks that needed to be performed by the custodians, including Respondent, could be performed at other times. All of the custodians except Respondent complied with the instructions of Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter repeated the instructions to Respondent several times. Respondent insisted on working in accordance with her own schedule and priorities. After a reasonable time, Mr. Hunter inspected the area for which Respondent was responsible. He found boxes in the area and saw Respondent walking down the hallway with a bag and supplies in her hand. Mr. Hunter asked Respondent why she had not complied with his instructions. She stated that she did not like to start another job before she finished the first job. Mr. Hunter repeated the need and the urgency of getting the boxes out of the area so that the other crews could stay on schedule. Respondent stated that she did not have to listen to Mr. Hunter because it was a Saturday and because he was not her supervisor. Respondent never removed the boxes in her area. Mr. Hunter had several conversations with Respondent regarding her refusal to follow his instructions. Respondent became very loud and obstreperous during at least one of those conversations. Other employees heard Respondent from different areas of the campus. Mr. Hunter conducted himself professionally during each of these conversations. During one of the conversations, Mr. Hunter requested Ms. Alice Powell, a teacher, to witness a portion of the conversation. Respondent left work before completing her assigned duties. She refused to answer questions from Mr. Hunter as to where she was going or if she would return. Respondent returned to the campus later in the day with her daughter. Respondent's daughter acted as an interpreter. Through her daughter, Respondent asked Mr. Hunter to write down everything he had said to Respondent during the day. When Mr. Hunter refused, Respondent threatened to sue Mr. Hunter for "violating her rights." Mr. Hunter asked Respondent to leave the premises. Respondent refused. Respondent stated that Mr. Hunter had never dealt with Puerto Ricans before and that they take care of their own problems. Mr. Hunter asked Respondent if she was threatening him, and Respondent said, "yes." Mr. Hunter telephoned Mr. Bill Mignon, the principal of the school. Mr. Mignon spoke to Respondent by telephone. Mr. Mignon asked Respondent to leave the campus and to discuss the matter in his office on Monday. Respondent left the campus but did not keep her appointment on Monday. Petitioner suspended Respondent with pay pending an investigation of the matter. Mr. Mignon and Mr. Clayton Wilcox, Petitioner's director of personnel, conducted an investigation into the matter. They interviewed witnesses, including Respondent, and reviewed written statements. On September 12, 1996, the Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay. Respondent now has a full-time position with another employer. Respondent was previously disciplined by Petitioner. In April, 1995, Petitioner verbally reprimanded Respondent for misusing time cards by leaving work and having another employee punch Respondent's time card at a later time. In May, 1996, Petitioner gave Respondent a written reprimand for taking excessive lunch breaks. In May, 1996, Petitioner issued a memorandum to Respondent for failing to comply with requirements for excused absences.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty and terminating Respondent's employment. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Hugh Balboni, Superintendent St. Johns County School Board 40 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dennis K. Bayer, Esquire Attorney at Law 306 South Oceanshore Boulevard (A1A) Post Office Box 1505 Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Anna I. Oquendo, pro se 21 Madeore Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent John H. Hopkins, Jr., has been employed with the Pinellas County school system since 1961. He has taught in elementary, junior high, middle and high schools. In addition to sick leave, a teacher employed with the Pinellas County school system is entitled to the following days of leave without loss of pay: two days per year for emergency or extenuating circumstances and two days per year for personal leave. These days are charged to the sick leave allowance of the teacher. In the 1976-77 school year, respondent was a science teacher at Disston Middle School. When a teacher has unused days which can be charged to sick leave, it is the established practice at Disston for the teacher to notify the assistant principal in advance when he intends to be absent and to complete the paperwork when he returns to duty. If a teacher does not have days accrued which can be charged to sick leave, he must take leave without pay. Leaves of absence without pay must be approved in advance by the county personnel office. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on January 17, 1977, a Monday, respondent telephoned Robert Twitty, the assistant principal at Disston and told him he would not be at school for the rest of the week. Mr. Twitty asked for the reason, and respondent informed him that he was going to Washington, D.C. for President Carter's inauguration. Twitty told respondent to call Mr. Tom Zachary, Disston's principal, and notify him of respondent's plans. Respondent did attempt to call Mr. Zachary at his home, but Zachary was out. When Zachary got home, he returned respondent's call, but was unable to reach him. On January 17, 1977, respondent, had one and one-half days remaining which could be charged to sick leave. Respondent did not return to school that week. On January 21, 1977, a Friday, the Pinellas County schools were closed due to cold weather. This decision to close the schools was not made by the Superintendent until approximately 9:30 p.m. on January 20, 1977. On Sunday evening, January 23, 1977, respondent again called Mr. Twitty at home and advised him that he would not be returning to duty at Disston on Monday because he was going to the county office to resolve some problems. Respondent telephoned Mr. John Hudson, the assistant superintendent for personnel, on Monday, January 24, 1977, but Hudson was not in. On Tuesday, January 25th, respondent had a doctor's appointment which took about two hours. He did not report to work on this day or for the rest of the school week. On Wednesday, January 26th, respondent spoke with Hudson on the telephone. While Hudson could not recall the substance of this conversation, It was respondent's recollection that Hudson told respondent to report back to Disston on Monday, January 31st. Dr. Douglas McBriarty, petitioner's director of instructional personnel, telephoned respondent on January 27, 1977, and told respondent that he had spoken to Superintendent Sakkis and, by his direction, respondent was to report to work the following morning. Respondent did not report to Disston on January 28th. At the hearing, respondent had no recollection of having talked to Dr. McBriarty on January 27, 1977. On the morning of January 31, 1977, respondent reported to work at Disston. He was called into Principal Zachary's office and was told that Dr. McBriarty would be coming out to the school later to discuss respondent's absence from school. Respondent then went up to his classroom. Assistant principal Twitty came into respondent's classroom and told him that Zachary wanted to see his lesson plans. Feeling that he was being harassed by Zachary, respondent told Twitty that he was leaving school and going to Clearwater to the county offices. As respondent was walking out to his car, Mr. Zachary came out to the parking lot and told respondent not to leave because Dr. McBriarty was coming. Respondent left the school and did not return. By letter dated February 2, 1977, to respondent from Superintendent Sakkis, respondent was notified that he was suspended from his duties at Disston without pay beginning Monday, January 24, 1977, and that it would be recommended to the School Board that he be dismissed. This action was based upon charges that respondent had been guilty of being absent without leave, misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. These charges were supplemented and amended by pleadings dated May 25, 1977, and June 27, 1977. Respondent had previously been suspended by the School Board without pay from March 4 through March 19, 1976. This action was based upon misconduct in office in that respondent had been absent without proper authority. (Exhibit No. 2) Prior to being transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975,. respondent taught biology and general science courses for five years at Dixie Hollins High School. Kenneth Watson, then principal of Dixie Hollins, had numerous problems with and complaints about respondent. These involved the grading and disciplining of students in his classes, the quality of his teaching, refusal to admit to his class a student who had been given an admission slip by the dean, the school's receipt of telephone calls and messages for respondent unrelated to his teaching assignments and respondent's relationship with his students. Although respondent was the first black teacher at Dixie Hollins, Principal Watson did not conceive respondent's problems to be of a racial nature. He felt that respondent's difficulty was the manner in which he handled students and presented materials to them. Dr. McBriarty observed respondent's classes at Dixie Hollins on three or four occasions and found that respondent was not able to communicate with students and that there was not a satisfactory teaching relationship between respondent and his students. Feeling that respondent was no longer effective at Dixie Hollins and in order to allow him an opportunity to improve his performance, it was determined by respondent's superiors that he should be transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975. This was to be a temporary transfer until a position was available in another high school. Prior to his transfer to Disston, respondent ordered from Westinghouse Learning Corporation a biology course instructor's kit for a 30-day on-approval examination. The invoice was addressed to respondent at Dixie Hollins High School, and the total amount due if the materials were not returned within 30 days was $177.25. The merchandise was ordered by respondent without a prior purchase order and was not returned within the 30-day period. When the bill from Westinghouse came to the attention of the school, which was after respondent had been transferred to Disston, inquiries were made. No one seemed to know where the kit was. The materials were finally returned to Westinghouse some months later and the charge was cancelled from the School Board's account. There was no evidence that respondent ever personally requested the school or the county to pay for this material. Although respondent was dissatisfied with being assigned to teach in a middle school in lieu of a high school, his first semester's performance at Disston Middle School was without serious criticism and his principal's appraisal ranged from good to excellent. His problems began when he was reassigned to Disston for the 1975/76 school year, and intensified during the 1976/77 school year. On the "instructional appraisal and improvement form for 1975/76, Principal Tom Zachary rated respondent as unsatisfactory in the areas of classroom management, preparation and organization, and attitude and growth. Zachary urged respondent to take part in middle school certification. Respondent was again assigned to Disston for the 1976/77 school year, although he had requested a transfer to a high school. Due to the poor evaluation for the previous year, in August of 1976, Principal Zachary prepared and discussed with respondent a list of objectives and directives to help improve respondent's instructional abilities and his evaluation for 1976/77. (Exhibits 12 and 13) During the first semester of the 1976/77 school year, several of respondent's superiors visited his classroom. Principal Zachary observed respondent's classes on several consecutive days in November of 1976. During his first days' observation, the students were assigned to copy materials from the blackboard. When he visited the class the following day, no reference was made by respondent to the blackboard material. Zachary found the students to be inattentive to respondent with respondent providing no signs of direction, no continuity and no teaching techniques. In Zachary's opinion, no learning was taking place and respondent's classes were completely disorganized. Area assistant superintendent Lee Benjamin observed three of respondent's classes on December 14, 1976. While he found the second period class, a class of higher ability, to be satisfactory, the first and third period classes were observed to be chaotic with no real learning or discipline occurring. Mr. Benjamin felt that the students did not understand what the assignment was due to the unclear nature of respondent's instructions. It was Benjamin's opinion that respondent had great difficulty with teaching and discipline and therefore was not effective. In early January of 1977, science supervisor William Beggs visited three of respondent's classes. While he found the second period class to have some degree of order and direction, the first and third period classes were observed to be highly disorganized. The students did not appear to understand what they were supposed to accomplish and respondent was not adhering to his lesson plans. Upon a review of respondent's lesson plans, Beggs did not feel that respondent was covering the subject matters expected of a seventh grade life science course. In late November of 1976, respondent was involved with the TORC (teacher renewal) program. Dr. Shelby Ridel, a resource teacher for petitioner, observed respondent's classes to be utterly chaotic, with no pattern or continuity in the tasks to be performed. The students were confused by the assignments given them, and respondent would not answer their questions. He often sent students out to the hall for disciplinary reasons. While respondent appeared cooperative with and receptive to the changes suggested by Dr. Ridel, she saw no real improvement in his classes over the several weeks she worked with respondent. She felt that respondent's greatest problem was classroom management. Assistant Principal Twitty, who was responsible for the discipline of Disston students, experienced more than usual discipline problems with respondent's classes. Respondent was told on numerous occasions not to put students out in the hall for disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless, he continued to do so. Such action not only violated school policy; it also was disruptive to teachers in nearby classrooms. Along with several other teachers, respondent was assigned to an interdisciplinary team to work with students and their parents. As a part of his responsibilities, he was to prepare the science section of a newsletter. He often failed to attend the team meetings and, on at least one occasion, he failed to prepare his section of the newsletter. Prior to his departure from Disston in January of 1977, respondent had checked out a tape recorder and several books from the school library. He had also borrowed from Dr. Ridel a seventh grade science curriculum guide. The tape recorder was returned by respondent in April of 1977, and the other items were not returned until June or July, 1977. Respondent's explanation for this delay was that no one had requested the return of these materials and that he did not want to go back to Disston after his suspension. Respondent admitted that his classes gave the appearance of being chaotic and disorganized. It was his explanation that he utilized an individual, systems approach to teach his students and that his superiors did not understand or approve of this teaching technique. He further explained the adverse reaction by his superiors to his classroom techniques by emphasizing the lack of teaching materials and equipment made available to him at Disston, his inexperience in teaching sixth and seventh grade students and his desire to return to high school teaching.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that respondent's teaching contract be cancelled and that he be dismissed as an employee of the Pinellas County school system. Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518 George M. Osborne, Esquire Rutland Central Bank Building 55 Fifth Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Suite 990, Lincoln Center 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven T. George, began teaching in the Bay County school system in the fall of 1977. He was employed as a physical education teacher and as a coach. The Respondent has had an exemplary record as an instructional employee of the Bay County School Board until he encountered personal problems during the 1988-89 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed as a physical education teacher and assistant football coach at Mosley High School. During that school year, his supervisor, Assistant Principal Sarah Cooper, observed his performance deteriorate unexpectedly and in a way which was out of character from his previous level of performance and demeanor. She found occasions when he was not properly supervising his class and when he had not done lesson plans, as required by the school administration. Ms. Cooper had to assist the Respondent in developing a semester examination, however, he ultimately used an examination given to him by another teacher. Thereafter, he administered the examination but did not complete the grading of it and failed to complete his grade book, which responsibility was ultimately performed by Ms. Cooper. Additionally, during the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent was observed to become increasingly isolated from other members of the faculty. His behavior became characterized by unpredictability, excessive arrogance, argumentativeness, anger and verbal aggression, which was entirely different from the personality traits which he had exhibited and which his co-workers and supervisors had observed since he had been with the school system. Indeed, female teachers in the physical education department were reluctant to be alone in the workroom with him because of the advent of these objectionable personality traits. The Respondent, during this period of time, was undergoing a divorce, or the aftermath of one, which involved a very emotional custody dispute with his former wife concerning custody of their daughter. During the 1988-89 school year, he was observed to repeatedly burden his co-workers and school administrators with the details of his personal problems and to exhibit uncharacteristic and rather severe emotional outbursts of both anger and grief. After being counseled by his supervisors concerning what they believed to be rather bizarre behavior, when measured against his prior performance and demeanor in other school years, the Respondent ultimately voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Woods, a psychiatric treatment and evaluation facility. The Respondent spent approximately 5-1/2 months in that facility, underwent treatment in response to his supervisor's advice to "get some help", and returned to Mosley High School to complete the 1988-89 school year. For the remainder of that school year, the Respondent satisfactorily assumed and carried out all of his responsibilities and performed his work as a teacher in good fashion. His temperament and demeanor had returned to that of the friendly and caring teacher and co-worker which he had formerly been before his personal problems developed. His supervisor, Ms. Cooper, gave him a satisfactory annual evaluation at the conclusion of the 1988-89 school year. The Respondent's emotional difficulties and related performance difficulties as a teacher reappeared in the 1989-90 school year. During the pre-planning phase of his teaching and coaching duties for the 1989-90 school year, in August of 1989, the Respondent was observed to be very disruptive, argumentative, and, indeed, hostile to a visiting speaker at a seminar for instructional personnel. He was observed to repeatedly interrupt the speaker with arrogant, argumentative questions and comments, during the course of which behavior he was observed to be pacing back and forth at the rear of the room where the seminar was conducted while all other attendees at the seminar were seated and listening to the speaker. This arrogant, argumentative behavior was so apparent and so inappropriate for the seminar-type setting in which it occurred that his supervisor felt it necessary to apologize to the speaker at the lunch break on that day. Additionally, during this pre-planning phase of the school year, which is before the children arrive for the school year, the Respondent was observed to have difficulties in his dealings and relationships with other coaches arising out of his increasingly arrogant, argumentative attitude and behavior. Because of this and, inferentially, because his supervisors were aware of his emotional difficulties with which they had had experience the previous school year, the decision was made to relieve him as assistant football coach at Mosley High School. A meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Tucker, the Principal, and Mr. Cochran, the head coach, to explain that action to the Respondent and to explain to him that he would still continue as a physical education instructor. In the course of that meeting, the Respondent became very emotional, hostile, and argumentative. He exhibited frequent angry outbursts to the extent that he would not allow Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cochran to adequately explain the basis of the personnel action directed at him. The Respondent ultimately, angrily departed from the meeting before it was completed. On that same day, he left Mosley High School without administrative permission and went to Cherry Street Elementary School on some mission related to his daughter, who was a student at that school. She had been the subject of a bitter custody dispute between the Respondent and his former wife. He is accused of interfering with the operation of Cherry Street Elementary School on that occasion, although the record does not reflect what his conduct was at Cherry Street Elementary School that day. The 1989-90 school year then commenced at Mosley High School with the arrival of the students. The Respondent assumed his regular duties as a physical education instructor. He was observed, early in that school year, on a number of occasions, to fail to control behavior of students in his gym class and to fail to be in his gym class at appropriate times which amounted to inadequate supervision of his students on those occasions. His planning for his classes was observed to become sporadic, with repeated occasions when he failed to have lesson plans prepared. Also, in the fall of the 1989-90 school year, he was observed to forget his keys to the physical education area on a number of occasions. He would, on repeated occasions, forget, from one period in a school day to the next, what he was to teach that following period. He would have to be reminded by his colleagues. He would also forget to call his students in adequate time at the end of the physical education period for them to dress for their next classes. He had to be reminded by his colleagues to do this. He would also repeatedly forget when he had extra duty, such as "door duty" and locker room assignments. His general level of cooperativeness with his colleagues declined markedly. His behavior became harsh and rude to his colleagues and to students. He was observed to be very harsh and rude to a new student coming into his physical education class and spoke loudly, in an abrasive manner to the student in front of the class, embarrassing that student. These problems occurred repetitively and in rapid succession during the first month of the school year in September of 1989. Because of the nature of the problems, the past history of the Respondent's emotional instability whereby he had lost his ability to be a caring, productive, well-performing teacher (which had been his unblemished record of behavior and performance for all the years he taught prior to the 1988-89 school year), Mr. Tucker, the Principal, felt that he had to act quickly to prevent an even worse situation occurring in the 1989-90 school year when he observed that the Respondent's emotional instability of the year before was recurring. Consequently, Mr. Tucker requested that the superintendent, Mr. Simonson, meet with the Respondent in an effort to resolve his difficulties in the matter of his perceived emotional instability and resulting declining performance. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Simonson, and Mr. Tucker on September 30th. At the meeting, the Respondent was confronted with the fact of his displayed emotional instability and related declining teaching performance, at which point he became very belligerent and hostile. He was, alternatively, on the verge of tears and shouting in anger. Because of the above-stated reasons for the meeting and because of the emotional instability which was so apparently displayed by the Respondent during the meeting, Mr. Simonson gave the Respondent three days of sick leave to allow him to remain at home and get some professional attention to try to regain his emotional stability before returning to the classroom. The Respondent's problems persisted, however. Although the precise date is uncertain, at approximately this time, the Respondent announced that he was going to seek election as Superintendent of the Bay County school system in opposition to Mr. Simonson. The Respondent testified himself that he elected to run for this office while he was still a teacher at Mosley High School in part, at least, to save his job because he believed that the Bay County school administration and particularly, Mr. Simonson, would be reluctant to discharge him while he was a political candidate in opposition to Mr. Simonson because of the bad impression that might make on the electorate. Shortly after he made this announcement, again on an undetermined date in the fall of 1989, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the "Baker Act", Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Apparently, the Respondent's family members had him committed although the precise reasons are not of record. The Respondent expressed the belief at hearing that his family members had him committed because of his announcement to run for Superintendent, although that is not established to be the case. The Respondent, at the time he was committed, believed that he did not suffer from a mental condition justifying his commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. The Respondent has since come to understand that he suffered from a manic-depressive condition, also known as a "bi-polar disorder". As a result of this eventuality, Mr. Simonson determined that the Respondent should not be teaching in the school system during such a period of emotional instability. In order to be fair to the Respondent, he did not want to actually suspend him from his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Simonson elected to place the Respondent in the status known as "overused sick leave", which means that the Respondent, although he had used up all of his annual and sick leave, could still be carried on the personnel records as an employee in terms of retaining his retirement and insurance benefits, although he was not paid for the time he was absent from his duties as a result of this decision and as a result of his emotional condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was, in this fashion, removed from his instructional duties and from his job site in the fall of 1989, after his involuntary commitment, pursuant to the Baker Act. Thereafter, in the fall of 1989, the Respondent obtained treatment at the "Life Management Center" in Bay County under the care of Dr. Nellis. Dr. Nellis diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from manic-depression and prescribed Lithium to treat his manic condition. The Respondent responded well to treatment, such that Dr. Nellis, late in the fall of 1989, opined that he was fit to return to work as a teacher. The Respondent apparently accepted the fact of his illness, continued taking his medication after being released by Dr. Nellis, and was returned to his duties with the Bay County school system at Rosenwald Middle School in late January or early February of 1990. Once again, he returned to his "old self", in terms of his adequate performance as a teacher, his emotional stability, good relationships with colleagues and students, and his prior demeanor as a genuinely caring teacher. His performance for the remainder of 1990 through the end of classes in June was good. He worked for the remainder of that school year as a physical education instructor, which is the field in which he is certified as a teacher. The Respondent had also been seen by Dr. Zumarraga beginning in November of 1989, who also found him to be manic-depressive, and who informed Mr. Simonson, by letter presented to Mr. Simonson by the Respondent, that the Respondent was taking medication for his illness and had exhibited acceptable behavior. As a result of those assurances by the Respondent's psychiatrist, Mr. Simonson had allowed the Respondent to return to work at Rosenwald Middle School in approximately early February of 1990. Apparently, sometime in late spring or early summer of 1990, the Respondent had doubts that he was still suffering from his condition and consulted another physician for an additional opinion. Apparently, he quit taking his medication sometime during the summer of 1990 as a result of that consultation. In late August of 1990, the Respondent returned to Rosenwald Middle School as a physical education instructor. Ms. Love, who had been Assistant Principal at the school, had moved up to the position of Principal. In the spring of 1990, the Respondent had been quiet and cooperative, had gotten along well with colleagues and students, and had performed his duties well, after undergoing treatment and being placed on a program of medication for his manic- depressive disorder. In the fall, however, he was immediately observed by Ms. Love and others of his colleagues and supervisors to have reverted to the arrogant, abrasive and extremely assertive attitudes and behavior, which he had exhibited in the fall of 1989, prior to securing treatment. Before these attitudes and behavior had manifested themselves, however, and immediately upon the start of the 1990-91 school year, given his long and worthwhile experience in the physical education field in the county system, Ms. Love asked the Respondent if he would work on a plan for a "middle school olympics" athletic event. The Respondent agreed to do this and immediately began setting about the formulation of a plan whereby all of the middle schools in the county would participate in the olympics athletic event on a given day at Tommy Oliver Stadium. He arrived at a plan to accomplish this and drafted it in memorandum form. Instead of sharing it with Ms. Love, however, he transmitted it directly to the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson. This was a departure from appropriate procedures for the planning of such events because the Respondent did not transmit his plan to Ms. Love for her initial approval before its being communicated to supervisory personnel at the county district level. The Respondent became somewhat obsessed with the idea of planning and conducting the olympics event, devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy to it. In early September, the Respondent brought a student to the office for disciplinary reasons asserting that he had caught the student stealing or "going through the lockers". Upon questioning of the Respondent by Ms. Love, it was learned that he did not find the child in the locker room or dressing room actually invading lockers, but found him in the locker room area where he was not supposed to be. He accused the child of stealing or attempting to steal when he had not actually observed him do this. The Respondent was criticized in this action for not having actually observed the child stealing and yet accusing him of it and for having brought prior behavior of the child up in his disciplining of the child, which Ms. Love felt to be inappropriate. In fact, the Respondent had some justification for suspecting this particular child of wrongful conduct or illegal activity because of past disciplinary violations committed by the child of a similar nature. At approximately the same period of time, in early September, the Respondent was observed to have grabbed a child by the arm in the act of admonishing the child for some alleged miscreant behavior and stating that "I am going to break your little arm". Ms. Love counseled the Respondent about these two instances and gave him an "improvement notice" on September 7, 1990 concerning them. An improvement notice is a disciplinary memorandum or report to a teacher such as the Respondent by which the Principal admonishes a teacher for inappropriate behavior and directs steps for improvement of the situation which led to that criticized behavior. On September 14, 1990, Ms. Love had another formal conference with the Respondent, since she had seen his arrogant, abrasive, overly-assertive behavior with colleagues and students continuing. She discussed with him his inappropriate behavior towards students and faculty and the matter of the Respondent's disciplinary referral of a student to the guidance counselor. He had referred a student to the guidance counselor for discipline and had been overbearing and abusive to the guidance counselor in his communication with her concerning the disciplinary referral. Ms. Love counseled him about the basic procedures involved in referring students for discipline, which specifically do not involve the guidance counselor. Rather, disciplinary referrals should appropriately go to the administration of the school, as delineated in the teacher's handbook, which the Respondent had previously been provided. Additionally, Ms. Love felt that the Respondent had exhibited a pattern of not turning in required documents in a timely manner; therefore, she gave him an improvement notice for these matters dated September 28, 1990. In fact, however, it was not established by the Petitioner that the Respondent had been untimely in turning in any required documents, reports, and the like, other than one report which had been due on a Friday, when he was absent due to illness and which he promptly turned in on the following Monday. During the fall of 1990, the Respondent was observed to frequently share details of his custody dispute and problems concerning his child and problems with his wife or former wife through notes, letters and conversations with other members of the staff in an inappropriate manner. He appeared to be emotionally preoccupied with these personal problems while on duty. On the third day of school in the fall of 1990, Mr. Simonson located his office temporarily at Rosenwald Middle School. He had done the same thing at other schools in the county that were having disruptions caused by on-going construction during the fall. Rosenwald Middle School at this time was undergoing construction work, including work on its air-conditioning system, such that many of the students and teachers did not have the benefit of air- conditioning. Mr. Simonson, therefore, elected to spend a day or so at Rosenwald Middle School on a sort of "Bob Graham Work Day". Ms. Love announced that fact over the public address system during the morning announcements on that day. The Respondent came to Ms. Love's office a short time later carrying the school's daily bulletin in his hand. He seemed hostile and agitated, leaned over her desk and shook the bulletin in her face, stating to her that he wanted her to sign on the bulletin her name and the statement she had made about the reason the Superintendent was at the school on that day. He further stated to her, in effect, that he was "fixing to be fired" and that he wanted Ms. Love to admit and put in writing on the face of the morning school bulletin the real reason, as he felt it, why the Superintendent was at the school that day. Ms. Love refused to do this and considered this behavior to be bizarre and threatening, given that the Respondent obviously felt that the Superintendent had been on campus that day to "spy on him". During late September of 1990, the school embarked, at the behest of Ms. Love and other administrators and teachers, on a "school spirit week" contest. The contest involved decorating the doors of the classrooms by the students, using as themes for the decorations certain words which denoted various aspects of "school spirit". The doors were to be decorated during "trust class time". "Trust classes" are classes which meet for approximately fifteen minutes or so at the outset of the school day, somewhat analogous to what is commonly known as "homeroom classes". The students were allowed to decorate the doors during their trust class time. Ms. Love accused the Respondent of keeping students overtime in their trust class, which required them to miss part of their next class and be tardy to that class in order to decorate his room door. In fact, she gave him an "improvement notice" in the nature of a reprimand for this on September 28, 1990. It was not proven, however, that the Respondent had actually kept students late at his behest for this purpose. In fact, his testimony is that he required no students to stay in his trust class working on door decorations after the time for the trust class to be over and instructed them to obtain permission from their other teachers should they elect to stay overtime to decorate the doors. The Hearing Officer having weighed the testimony, candor and credibility of the witnesses on this issue, including the ability of the witnesses to have knowledge of the facts concerning the time and methods employed to accomplish the door decoration effort, this violation of school procedures was not proven. The door decoration contest was judged on September 28, 1990 and the Respondent's class did not win. The Respondent became very agitated and angry at this result to the point of requesting and obtaining a meeting with Ms. Love concerning it. His temper and emotions were out of control on this occasion. He behaved in a loud, abrasive, and angry manner, even to the point of alternately crying, shaking, and shouting. He accused Ms. Love of penalizing his children by denigrating their efforts in the door decoration contest in order to hurt him, claiming that her actions really were a personal vendetta against him in the course of which the children were victimized. In the midst of his emotional outburst concerning this matter, he refused to listen to any explanation which Ms. Love attempted to give him but repeatedly interrupted her efforts to explain how the contest was judged and its rules. He even attempted to call a newspaper concerning the incident. He was inordinately obsessed with the conduct of the contest and with the result. As this incident with Ms. Love was progressing, Corporal Lassiter, the school Resource Officer, observed and heard part of it. In his view, having observed the behavior of the Respondent on this occasion and being aware of the Respondent's past history, Mr. Lassiter considered the possibility of initiating an involuntary Baker Act hospitalization at that moment, because of the Respondent's behavior. During the course of this confrontation with Ms. Love, Mr. Lassiter or others persuaded the Respondent to step across the hall to a different office to calm down. After he went into the other office with Mr. Lassiter and another administrator, Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's behavior continued to be somewhat bizarre. His demeanor toward Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes alternated from being very angry and upset with them to calling them, and acting toward them, as though they were good friends. At one point, he told Mr. Lassiter that when he got elected Superintendent, all would hear about this incident in the newspaper and the reasons for it all "would become very clear". He stated then that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes would have good employment positions with him when he became Superintendent. Alternatively, before making these statements and also after making these statements, he became angry and hostile to both men, saying, in essence, that they were "all against me", becoming accusatory toward them and asserting, in essence, that Mr. Lassiter, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Love, and others in the administration were seeking to do him harm. Partly at the instance of Mr. Lassiter, the Respondent finally calmed down sufficiently to accede to Mr. Lassiter's recommendation that he call a substitute to take over his classes for the remainder of the day. A substitute was called and Mr. Lassiter then escorted the Respondent to his truck in order to see that he was removed safely from the campus without further incident with colleagues or students. As the Respondent was getting into his truck, preparing to leave the campus, he told Mr. Lassiter to "tell Ms. Love that she can kiss my ass". Teachers are required to be at Rosenwald Middle School by 7:30 a.m. The first bell rings at 7:37 a.m., and the "trust class" begins at 7:45 a.m. On approximately six occasions during September of 1990, Ms. Love had to sit in on the Respondent's trust class because he was late arriving at his class. She gave him an improvement notice concerning this deficiency on September 28, 1990. Additionally, on two separate occasions, Mr. Lassiter handled the Respondent's trust classes when he was late. The next school day after the incident concerning the door decoration contest on September 28, 1990 was October 1, 1990, a Monday. The Respondent was approximately 20 minutes late to school that day. Ms. Love, being concerned about the ramifications of the behavior she had witnessed in the Respondent the preceding Friday, met with the Respondent when he arrived at school for purposes of determining his state of mind and to talk to him about his tardiness. She found him still agitated, although not as much as he had been on Friday, the 28th. He continued to accept no responsibility for those actions and for his tardiness. He denied even being late, and as a result, Ms. Love assigned the school Resource Officer, Corporal Lassiter, to accompany the Respondent whenever he had students with him for the remainder of the day. It should be pointed out, however, that on most of the occasions when the Respondent was tardy to his first class during September of 1990, it was because he did not have a key to fit his office and would have to look for another co-worker to let him in. He was given a key at the outset of the school year which did not fit. Consequently, he disposed of it, ordering another key, the provision of which to him was delayed for unknown reasons. Later that same day, the Respondent brought between 20 and 30 students to the office for being tardy to class. The procedure for handling tardies at Rosenwald Middle School is that if a child is tardy, a teacher counsels with the child at first. The parents are contacted, the child is assigned to "team detention", and a student misconduct form is forwarded to the appropriate administrator upon tardies becoming repetitive. It is unusual to bring a student to the Principal's office for tardiness. The Respondent explained when they arrived at the Principal's office that all of the students were late to class and that Ms. Love should do something about it. This was a departure from normal procedures in dealing with tardy students. It should also be pointed out, however, that the school administration had recently issued a memorandum admonishing teachers that they should deal more severely with tardy students. When this entire group of students proved to be tardy on the day in question, the Respondent volunteered, with the agreement of the other physical education teachers/coaches, to escort the students to the Principal's office for disciplinary reasons concerning their tardiness. The other teachers involved agreed. On that same occasion, on October 1, 1990, when the Respondent had the group of students waiting outside the Principal's office, he apparently had some sort of confrontation with a student named Malackai. Apparently, the student was arguing with him and denying being tardy, which was the reason he was brought to the office. The Respondent offered to wrestle the student after school and "tear him limb from limb". This action caused Mr. Lassiter to step between the Respondent and the student and to send the student to Ms. Love's office to prevent any further such confrontation. Although the student was large for his age, these actions by the Respondent intimidated the student. On that same day, the Respondent was giving a lesson in softball on the softball field. He was being observed by Mr. Lassiter at the time at the behest of Ms. Love, who was concerned about his emotional stability. During this lesson, the Respondent, for unknown reasons, began rather randomly talking about accidents, lions, the dangers of eating red meat, and some sort of discussion of suicide. When he observed a student not paying attention to him, he hit the student on the head with a clipboard. He then continued his rambling discussion. A few minutes later, the same child asked when they would be allowed to play softball; and the Respondent hit him with the clipboard again. The student got tears in his eyes and was intimidated by the Respondent's conduct. When Mr. Lassiter observed that the Respondent might be about to commit the same act for a third time, he stepped between the student and the Respondent in order to prevent this from happening again. Physical education teachers are required to supervise students by direct observation in their locker room where they dress out for physical education classes and then dress in their regular clothes again at the end of classes. This is necessary in order to prevent fights and horseplay in the locker room, which can be dangerous. On October 1, 1990, during the Respondent's period to supervise the boys' locker room, he attempted to telephone Mr. Tucker, the Principal at Mosley High School. While he was on the telephone, he left the locker room class unsupervised and was unable to observe and supervise the locker room from the location of the telephone in the coach's office. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent again left his physical education class unsupervised while he was talking on the telephone for some 15-20 minutes. During the month that the Respondent had worked with Mr. Kent in the physical education department, Mr. Kent felt that although the Respondent generally had handled his duties well, he had spent an excessive amount of time on the telephone, rather than being in his assigned area. October 2, 1990 was the Respondent's last day of employment with the Petitioner. He was suspended with pay and shortly thereafter, the School Board met and accepted the Superintendent's recommendation to suspend the Respondent without pay based upon the conduct described in the above Findings of Fact occurring in August and September of 1990. The Board took the positions that this conduct amounted to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. In the Amended Administrative Complaint, on which this matter proceeded to hearing, which was filed on July 30, 1991, the factual allegations of the Complaint assert that the suspension action was taken based upon "alleged gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office"; however, the Amended Complaint actually charges that the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint violate Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning misconduct in office allegedly so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system and charges incapacity (as a subset of incompetency) alleging violations of Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, after the suspension occurred, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the Baker Act on the day following an apparent arrest for DUI, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and having a concealed firearm. The Respondent was convicted of none of these charges but, rather, pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and to a misdemeanor weapons charge. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In fact, the weapon which the Respondent had in his car was believed by him to be legally possessed since it was merely the 22 pistol with which he used blanks for training his bird dogs. The pistol happened to be on the floorboard of his car when he was arrested by the officer. The Respondent spent a short period of time at Bay Medical Center, pursuant to involuntary Baker Act commitment on this occasion. Also, in 1990, at an undetermined time in the fall, he voluntarily admitted himself to the Rivendell Psychiatric Center for approximately 2-1/2 weeks in order to receive additional evaluation because he was unsure whether he was actually manic-depressive or not. Thereafter, while still suspended from his employment, in May of 1991, the Respondent apparently had an argument with his parents at their home in Bonifay and then left their home to return to his own home in the vicinity of Panama City in Bay County, Florida. Rumors apparently were communicated to law enforcement officials to the effect that the Respondent had threatened to kill his parents and had left their home with a high-powered rifle and was journeying to Panama City to his own home. Apparently, as a result of such reports, after the Respondent was at his own home, to his surprise, law enforcement vehicles and numerous law enforcement personnel, especially the Bay County Sheriff Department Swat Team, arrived in his yard, and, by megaphone, demanded his surrender. A television news crew was present at the scene and filmed the incident, which may have received billing as an "armed confrontation" between the swat team and the Respondent. In fact, this is untrue. When the Respondent observed the law enforcement officers arriving on his premises in a number of vehicles, he telephoned his attorney to inform him of the situation and then went to the door in response to the directive that he come outside. When he went to the door to ascertain why the law enforcement officers were at his residence, he was armed with a fork and a hamburger. He was charged with no crime in connection with this incident, although, apparently, he was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act once again for a brief period of time. The incident was disseminated to the public on the electronic media. However, no armed confrontation was proven to have occurred, nor was there any proof that the Respondent ever threatened to kill his parents. Although Mr. Simonson testified that there would be a great public outcry if he reinstated the Respondent because of this incident and the other incidents, there was no showing by the Petitioner that the incidents occurring at Rosenwald Middle School leading to the Respondent's suspension nor the incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase were ever communicated to the public generally or to parents of students of the Bay County school system or the students themselves. It was not shown by the Petitioner that the Superintendent or other officials of the Petitioner received any complaints from parents or members of the general public concerning the Respondent, his behavior, or his teaching performance. The incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase and the swat team confrontation, delineated in the above Findings of Fact, did not occur while the Respondent was on school premises nor while he was engaged in his duties as a teacher or coach. With regard to either incident, he was not shown to have committed any crime or conduct which can constitute misconduct in office. Both incidents occurred in the Respondent's private life, away from his employment and away from the School Board premises. The only conduct shown to have been disseminated in the public media involved the Respondent being taken into custody at his home by the Sheriff's swat team because the television news crew was there filming the incident. He was charged with no crime on that occasion and was shown to have committed no form of reprehensible conduct. He was merely involuntarily committed shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Baker Act. None of that can constitute misconduct in office, much less misconduct in office which in any way abrogates his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system involved. The Respondent has been taking Lithium and Prozac for his manic- depressive condition since 1989. He is presently under the treatment of Dr. David Smith, a licensed psychologist; and Dr. Ben Pimentel, a licensed psychiatrist, at a facility known as the "Life Management Center", as an outpatient. Both of these professionals opined that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, the symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission, as they are at the present time. Indeed, in the past, since he first began taking medication for his condition in 1989 after being diagnosed as manic-depressive, at those times when the Respondent was taking his medication, his behavior and his teaching performance was up to the good and satisfactory standard which he had consistently exhibited from 1977 through the 1987-88 school year. It is only on those occasions when he has ceased taking his medication, in the apparent belief that his problem was not a chronic one, that he has exhibited the emotional instability, such as that displayed at Rosenwald Middle School in August and September of 1990, which is the subject of this proceeding. Indeed, both Drs. Smith and Pimentel, the only experts testifying in this proceeding, who testified for the Respondent, established that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, his symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission and he will be competent to teach in terms of both his emotional stability and his ability to perform his duties as a teacher. Although Dr. Smith acknowledged that the rudeness exhibited by the Respondent on the occasions at issue in this case and his behavior involving striking a student and offering to wrestle a student might be behavior unrelated to the bi-polar disorder, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that, in the Respondent's case, given the many years of his teaching experience when he was a calm, caring, competently-performing instructional employee with behavior not characterized by such outbursts and aggressiveness, such conduct is, indeed, directly related to the present, active nature of his disorder on those occasions. On those occasions, he was not taking his medication. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent needs to continue his medication. If he does continue his medication, he will be competent to continue teaching or to once again teach because his symptoms will remain in remission. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent may need the motivation of a court order or employment directive or condition to insure that he continues his medication because if he obtains a medical opinion that he is no longer sick, he may not take the medication and stop the treatment. Additionally, Dr. Pimentel finds that the Respondent will require monthly counselling sessions and monitoring of his medication level to make sure it remains at a therapeutic level. Under those conditions, however, he would be capable of resuming his teaching duties. The Respondent, in his testimony, expressed the wish to obtain another medical opinion to make sure, in his view, that he is still manic- depressive, although he accepts the diagnosis that he is manic-depressive and is willing to continue his medication and to submit to monthly monitoring of his medication and monthly treatment by his presently-treating professionals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Steven T. George, be suspended for a period of two years, but that the suspension be abated and the Respondent immediately reinstated to his duties as an instructional employee of the Bay County school district, with all of the rights of a tenured teacher, under the following circumstances which should remain in effect for a probationary period of two (2) years: His psychiatrist shall file monthly with the School Board a detailed report of his attendance at counselling sessions and the result of his monthly blood tests to ascertain if his medication remains at therapeutic levels. He is required to maintain the therapeutic levels of Lithium and Prozac or such medication as his physician and psychiatrist deem medically appropriate. If he fails to attend counselling sessions or to maintain therapeutic blood levels of his appropriate medication for any two (2) consecutive months, then this should be determined to be, at law, willful neglect of duty, subjecting him to dismissal as a teacher with the Bay County school district subject to the Respondent's right to contest such an employment action, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in this forum. There should be no award of back pay in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There should be no award of attorney's fees in light of the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law , and the opinion in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, Florida, 17 FLWD 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA, opinion filed May 15, 1992; Case Number 91-1831). The cases cited by the Respondent seem to accord the Respondent a hearing opportunity on the issue, with award of fees being discretionary. The Werthman decision appears contra in termination proceedings, however. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except that it was not proven that he had "gone through Ms. Love's mailbox". Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 28-29. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 33-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-39. Accepted. 40. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-47. Accepted. 48. Rejected, as not, in its entirety, being in accordance with the preponderant, competent evidence of record. 49-56. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 57-61. Accepted. 62. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 24-30. Accepted. 31-36. Accepted. 37. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 38-41. Accepted. 42-48. Accepted. 49-51. Accepted. 52. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 53-54. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 64-72. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. (Second No. 74). Accepted. 75-78. Accepted. 79. Rejected in the sense that it was proven by the Petitioner that at the time he was suspended, the Respondent was incompetent to teach due to incapacity related to his emotional instability. 80-85. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent P.O. Drawer 820 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, SALE, ET AL. 304 Magnolia Avenue P.O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 David Brooks Kundin, Esq. DOBSON & KUNDIN, P.A. 210 South Monroe Street P.O. Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
