The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Broward County School Board (School Board) is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Meadowbrook Elementary School (Meadowbrook), Tropical Elementary School (Tropical), and Everglades Elementary School (Everglades)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. For five years, beginning in 2004, Joseph Tamburino was the area coordinator of student services for the School Board's South Central Office (SCO), overseeing the activities of the office's five-person secretarial staff, as well as the approximately 70 "itinerant" school psychologists and school social workers assigned to work at schools within the SCO's service area. Among these schools were Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school social worker since September 2000. She presently holds a professional services contract. From 2004 until August 2009, Respondent worked out of the SCO under the immediate supervision of Mr. Tamburino. During this time, she never received less than a satisfactory annual performance appraisal from Mr. Tamburino; however, in the "comments" section of the last appraisal he gave Respondent (for the 2008-2009 school year), Mr. Tamburino did write, "Jessica should work on improving absenteeism and performance issues such as task completion, timelines and adhering to work hours." During the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino "beg[a]n to have problems" with Respondent's being where she was supposed to be during the school day. These "problems" persisted, despite Mr. Tamburino's efforts to address them at meetings with Respondent and in written correspondence he sent her. Following the end of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent a "Letter of Reprimand," dated August 14, 2007, which read as follows: This correspondence is submitted as a formal reprimand for your failure to follow office procedures. This is the second occasion that I have had to meet with you regarding not being present at your assigned schools for the full workday. We met on February 1, 2007 because you were not in your assigned schools for the full workday (7.5 hours) over a period of five days. Furthermore, we met on June 1, 2007, because you were not in your assigned schools during the hours you were required to be present on May 4 and May 24, 2007. Know and understand that this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by this administration. You are hereby directed from this point forward, to comply with all administrative directives. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action such as a referral to Professional Standards and the Special Investigative Unit, suspension or termination. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on August 14, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Less than four months later, Mr. Tamburino issued Respondent another "Letter of Reprimand," which was dated December 7, 2007, and read as follows: This letter is submitted as a formal reprimand for your continued failure to follow office procedure and falsification of records. On November 8, 2007 you were not in your assigned school for 7.5 hours. You called the South Central Student Services office and reported that you were leaving New River Middle School at 4:00 p.m. However, you were seen at a store at a shopping plaza at 3:00 p.m. Although you did not work a full day on November 8, 2007, you falsely reported to a Student Services secretary that you finished your workday after 7.5 hours. This is the second written reprimand that you have received within the last four months for failure to follow office procedures and falsification of records. This behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. You are directed to comply with office procedures, work your full 7.5 hour day, and sign in and out with accurate times. Failure to comply will result in further disciplinary action. Your signature evidences receipt of and an understanding of this document. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. Ten days after evidence of your knowledge of this correspondence, it will become public record. Respondent signed this "Letter of Reprimand" on December 17, 2007, signifying that she had "read and underst[ood] [its] contents." Respondent did not file a grievance "specifically challenging" either the August 14, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand," or the December 7, 2007, "Letter of Reprimand." On March 17, 2008, Dr. Tamburino sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: As you are aware, we have had two recent meetings that have included discussions of following office procedures, the provision of social work services and collaboration with the community liaison and other personnel. On February 1, 2008 we had a meeting with Jerrod Neal from BTU and Ellen Williams, the Social Work BTU Steward. We examined possible discrepancies between dates listed for home visits on a log at New River and your November mileage voucher. Although there were L-panel entries to verify the home visits, there was inconsistent documentation of the addresses on the mileage voucher. However, you decided to withdraw your request for mileage reimbursement. Suggestions to improve your work performance were discussed. These include the following: * * * - Specific time of the home visits, including leaving and returning to campus, need to be documented. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was assigned to provide school social work services at three schools: Meadowbrook, Tropical, and Everglades. She was supposed to be at Meadowbrook on Mondays, Tropical on Wednesdays, and Everglades on Thursdays. On Tuesdays, she went to whichever of the three assigned schools "need[ed] [her]," and she also did "home visits." Fridays were designated as "office days." On these "office days," Respondent was expected to do "paperwork" that needed to be completed. Respondent was allowed to use office space at Meadowbrook as her "Friday office" instead of going to the SCO (which was farther from her residence than was Meadowbrook). Respondent missed a considerable amount of work during the 2008-2009 school year due to her daughter's, as well as her own, health-related issues, "exhaust[ing] her sick leave" before the year was half over. (By December, she "didn't have any sick days" left.) Respondent and the other school social workers and school psychologists working out of the SCO were required to notify the office's secretarial staff, by telephone (or in person, if at the SCO), of their whereabouts whenever they arrived at or left a work-related destination during the school day (Call In Office Procedure). It was the duty and routine practice of the secretarial staff, upon receiving such a call, to enter the information provided by the caller concerning the caller's location (as well as the date and time the call was received) on an "online call-in log" (Call Log) maintained by the SCO so as to have a record of these calls. The Call In Office Procedure and other "[o]ffice [p]rocedures" were discussed in a document entitled, "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year," which Mr. Tamburino provided "[a]ll the South Central Office . . . [p]ersonnel," including Respondent, at the very beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. The document read, in pertinent part, as follows: Attendance is reported daily by Joyce [Doe] (social workers) . . . to the payroll department. You must call Joyce . . . prior to taking any leave (e.g., personal, sick, other.) You must call each day you are taking sick leave (unless otherwise arranged with the Area Coordinator [Mr. Tamburino]). Call the office twice daily, when you arrive at your location and before you leave for the day (for example, for most elementary schools by 7:30 AM, and 3:00 PM). You should call from a school telephone. If you do not call in, you may be considered absent. You are expected to be in your assigned school 7.5 hours (same work hours as the teachers). If you leave a school for another destination, be sure to inform personnel at school and one of the secretaries in our office. When you are at the Area Office, please be sure that our secretaries log you in. A schedule of team meetings is provided at the beginning of each year. Attendance at all scheduled team meetings is mandatory. A planning day is a 7.5 hour workday. * * * Mileage vouchers must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the month per the Superintendent. Use the exact mileage to schools listed in SCA mileage chart. Requests for more than one month may not be approved. * * * You must request and obtain an approved TDA [Temporary Duty Authorization] from the Area Coordinator when performing duties in a different location other than your regular assignment. TDA request forms should be completed 10 days prior to the workshop/event. Return to the office at least once a week to handle office duties. The Area Coordinator monitors the quality of your work and evaluates your performance at least annually. The Area Coordinator makes all school assignments. In addition to having to follow these SCO "[o]ffice [p]rocedures," Respondent and her fellow "itinerant" workers, when they were at their assigned schools, were "under [the] direction" of the school's principal and had to do what the principal "dictated." During the 2008-2009 school year, the principal of Meadowbrook "wanted her ['itinerant'] employees to sign in/sign out when they came on [and when they left] campus," and there was a "sign in/sign out" sheet posted at the school for "itinerant" employees to sign, date, and note their "time in" and "time out." Respondent "knew" of Meadowbrook's "sign in/sign out" "procedure," and routinely complied with it (when she was actually at the school that school year). Respondent was not present, and therefore did not "sign in," at Meadowbrook on any of the following dates: Friday, October 3, 2008; Friday, October 31, 2008; Friday, January 9, 2009; Friday, February 6, 2009; Friday, February 13, 2009; Friday, February 20, 2009; and Monday, February 23, 2009. Nonetheless, she telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Meadowbrook on each of these days (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log), obviously knowing this information to be false.4 February 4, 2009, was a Wednesday, the day Respondent was supposed to be at Tropical. On that day, Respondent telephoned the SCO secretarial staff at 8:05 a.m. to report she was at Tropical, and called back at 5:56 p.m. to advise that she was leaving the school (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). In fact, Respondent was not at Tropical during the school day on February 4, 2009.5 Her reporting otherwise was a knowingly-made false misrepresentation. March 20, 2009, was a Friday and thus an "office day" for Respondent. Respondent had made arrangements to attend a conference that day. In accordance with the "Office Procedures: 2008-2009 School Year" that Mr. Tamburino had handed out at the start of the school year, Respondent had "request[ed] [on February 25, 2009] and subsequently obtain[ed] [on March 16, 2009] an approved TDA" from Mr. Tamburino to go to the conference (instead of doing the work she was "regular[ly] assign[ed]"). Respondent, however, did not go to the March 20, 2009, conference.6 Nonetheless, at 8:40 a.m. on March 20, 2009, she falsely and deceptively reported to the SCO secretarial staff over the telephone that she was on her "temporary duty" assignment (at the conference). At no time that day did Respondent advise the SCO secretarial staff that she was at her regular "Friday office" location, Meadowbrook,7 or that she was leaving that location (to pick up her sick daughter at school, or for any other reason). Furthermore, Respondent's leave records reveal that she did not take any type of leave that day. (Had she taken leave to care for her sick daughter that day, it would had to have been unpaid leave because she had no paid leave time left.)8 To receive reimbursement for non-commuting "travel expenses [she claimed she incurred] in the performance of [her] official duties" as a school social worker (that is, for mileage in excess of the 22.6 miles from her home to her office (at Meadowbrook) and back, reimbursed at a rate of 55 cents per mile, plus parking and tolls), Respondent had to submit mileage vouchers (on School Board Form 3042, Revised 09/05) to Mr. Tamburino for his approval.9 Respondent certified, by her signature on the forms, that her "claim[s] [were] true and correct" and that the "expenses [claimed] were actually incurred by [her]." Among the mileage vouchers she submitted were those covering the months of January 2009 (January Voucher) and February 2009 (February Voucher). There were entries on both the January and February Vouchers that were inconsistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on the dates for which these entries were made (as reflected by the entries made on the Call Log). On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 6, 2009, she had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first at Meadowbrook, then at the SCO, and finally on a home visit. On the January Voucher, for Friday, January 9, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Meadowbrook" (a trip of 0 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "Meadowbrook to KCW [School Board headquarters]" (a trip of 5.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), "KCW to Everglades" (a trip of 17.7 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"), and "Everglades to Home (a trip of 14.3 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 9, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at School Board headquarters and at Meadowbrook.) On the January Voucher, for Tuesday, January 20, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, January 20, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit and then at Everglades. On the February Voucher, for Tuesday, February 3, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Everglades to Home" (a trip of 28.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 3, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at Everglades any time that day. (She had only reported being at Meadowbrook and on a home visit.) On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 6, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 6, 2009, she had reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was first on a home visit, then at Meadowbrook, and finally at the SCO. On the February Voucher, for Friday, February 13, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to SCAO [SCO] to Home" (a trip of 10.6 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"); however, on the day in question, February 13, 2009, she had not reported to the SCO secretarial staff that she was at the SCO any time that day. (She had only reported being on a home visit and at Meadowbrook.10) On the February Voucher, for Wednesday, February 4, under "Places Visited," Respondent put, "Home to Tropical to Home" (a trip of 9.8 "Net [Reimbursable] Miles"). Unlike the other entries on the January and February Vouchers discussed above, this entry was entirely consistent with what Respondent had telephonically reported to the SCO secretarial staff concerning her whereabouts on that day; however, as noted above, she had not been truthful in making such a telephonic report to the SCO secretarial staff. It was Mr. Tamburino's responsibility to check all of his subordinates' mileage vouchers, including Respondent's, "for accuracy" before approving them. Because "there [were] discrepanc[ies] between what was on the [January and February] [V]oucher[s] and what was on the [C]all [L]og," Mr. Tamburino did not approve these vouchers. Instead, he "forward[ed] the mileage voucher issue to the [School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit] for investigation."11 On or about April 23, 2009, Respondent was provided a Notice of Investigation (dated April 17, 2008), which read as follows: This correspondence is provided as formal notice of investigation into a complaint received in this office regarding allegations that you falsified records. You will be contacted in the near future for the purpose of giving a statement. You have the right to representation through all phases of this investigation. You are directed not to engage the complainant, or any student witness, or any other witness in any conversation regarding the matter under investigation. A violation of this directive could result in disciplinary action for insubordination. Questions regarding the status of this investigation are to be directed to Joe Melita, Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit at (754)321-0735. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file will be part of your personnel file and will be public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days after completion of the investigative process. Investigator Johanna Davidson was the School Board employee in the Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit who conducted the investigation. As part of her investigation, Investigator Davidson took a sworn statement from Respondent on June 4, 2009.12 In her sworn statement, Respondent told Investigator Davidson, among other things, that she arrived at Meadowbrook at "around 8:00" a.m. on March 20, 2009, and stayed there "all day"13; that she "knew that [signing-in] was the procedure" at Meadowbrook; that this "procedure" had been in place for the past year and a half; that she signed in at Meadowbrook "99 percent of the time"; that she "may have missed one or two sign-ins" at Meadowbrook, but she did not "think [she] had"; and that she is "a very procedure and policy oriented person," so it would have been "odd" had she not signed in at Meadowbrook, even during the time, from January to April 2009, when she had been "on crutches."14 When asked by Investigator Davidson "what happened that day, February 4, 2009," Respondent made no mention of having been in the teacher's lounge at Tropical (where, in her testimony at the final hearing, she falsely claimed she had been the entire school day on February 4, 2009, leaving only once to go to the bathroom across the hall). Rather, in response to Investigator Davidson's inquiry, she suggested that this day (February 4, 2009) might have been one of the many days that school year that she had "taken off" because of health-related issues and that she had not "communicated properly" concerning her having "taken off" that day. Investigator Davidson completed her investigation and issued an Investigative Report detailing her findings in late June 2009. Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report contained a section entitled, "Summary of Investigation," the first paragraph of which read as follows: A Personnel Investigation Request pertaining to School Social Worker Jessica Harrison was received in the Office of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit. Ms. Harrison was accused of Falsification of Records stemming from the following alleged incidents: Ms. Harrison allegedly submitted a Temporary Duty Authorization (TDA) request to attend a conference but did not attend the conference, and allegedly reported to the South Central Area Student Services office that she was in attendance. Two of Ms. Harrison's assigned schools reported that Ms. Harrison was not in attendance on several days. Ms. Harrison allegedly did not report her absences to the South Central Area Student Services office. Ms. Harrison allegedly falsified mileage vouchers. The information that Investigator Davidson had obtained supporting these allegations was detailed in succeeding paragraphs of this section. (It was this information upon which the "[s]pecific [c]harges" in the instant Administrative Complaint were based.) The School Board's Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, to consider the results of Investigator Davidson's investigation and "found probable cause of falsification of records" warranting Respondent's termination. On September 16, 2009, Craig Kowalski, the Acting Executive Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit, sent Respondent a letter, which read as follows: The Professional Standards Committee met on September 9, 2009, and found probable cause of falsification of records. The Committee has recommended termination. Please be advised by way of this correspondence that you have been scheduled for a pre-disciplinary conference on Monday, October 5, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in my office, which is located on the third floor of the Technical Support Services Center, 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida. You have the right to representation at this conference. If for some reason you are unable to be present at this conference you must contact my office by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, 2009. You have previously been furnished with a full report. You are not to disseminate these documents to the public and/or media since it may contain protected information. If you have a representative, it is your responsibility to furnish him/her with copies of your documentation. Your failure or refusal to appear at this conference will be considered a waiver of this procedural requirement. A copy of the Special Investigative Unit report and this letter are being forwarded to the Professional Practices Department of the State Department of Education to determine if certificate disciplinary action is warranted. This letter of reprimand is being placed in your personnel file within the Records Department of the School Board of Broward County. This is your notice pursuant to Florida Statute 1012.31 that the material contained in the investigative file is now a part of your personnel file and is a public record and it will become available for inspection by the public ten (10) days from receipt of this letter. Any request made by the public for the documentation referred to above will be provided in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Questions regarding this correspondence are to be directed to my office (754)321-0735. The "pre-disciplinary conference" was held on October 5, 2009, as scheduled. Present at the conference were Mr. Kowalski; Carmen Rodriguez, Esquire (on behalf of the School Board); Respondent; and Jerrod Neal of the Broward Teachers Union, whom Respondent had asked to speak on her behalf. Prior to the conference, Respondent had received, and had had the opportunity to review, Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report. During the conference, Respondent affirmatively adopted the admission made by her representative at the meeting, Mr. Neal, that she had engaged in the "falsification" of which she was being accused (as described in the Investigative Report). The following is a verbatim recitation of what was said at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference": MR. KOWALSKI: This is a pre-disciplinary hearing for School Board employee Jessica Harrison. We are here pursuant to an investigative report dated June 30th, 2009. This investigation was based upon allegations of falsification of records. The Professional Standards Committee has reviewed this matter and has made a recommendation for disciplinary action. The disciplinary action is for termination. Have you received a copy of the investigative report? MS. HARRISON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: The purpose of this pre- disciplinary conference is to give you the opportunity to bring forward any additional matters that you believe should be considered before final decision as to disciplinary action is reached. Such matters include any additional evidence, witnesses or any matter that you believe should be considered. This is also an opportunity to say anything which you believe should be considered on your behalf. I am going to ask you if you identify additional witnesses, please identify what you believe the witness knows or would testify to or what the witness can contribute to this investigation. Do you understand the purpose of this meeting? MS. HARRISON: Um-hm. Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: Is there anything you wish to say, do you have any additional matters that you believe should be considered.? MR. NEAL: Let me speak on her behalf, because I think Ms. Harrison has pretty much said a lot of things at the Professional Standards Committee meeting. Since we've talked, since the information that was gathered during the investigation, I have really had a chance to look over it, I was really surprised by the recommendation of termination. Not eliminating what happened, because what happened as far as falsification of records, it was done. But circumstances surrounding it, I don't think it really warrants termination, considering that it is not an easy thing when you're going through a lot of personal problems. Once again, it doesn't justify what was done. But I think under the circumstances, decisions were made with not a lot of clear thought, and I really believe that Ms. Harrison's intention, from what I have known over the last couple of years, have always been good. I just think it's a matter of the things that she was actually going through. She should have brought them to the forefront earlier so there could have been a better understanding of what was going on, not an excuse for it, but a better understanding for what was going on. And you know, I would not be in my duty if I don't mention the fact that there has been so much, or so many other things that have been done through the district that should have warranted termination and people were not terminated. And I just think this is a situation where termination is to the extreme. Whereas some sort of punishment should happen, but termination is just way too much for this situation, because I think in her state of mind as she is now, I don't think these mistakes will be made again. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Do you want to add anything Ms. Harrison? MS: HARRISON: I think he summed it up. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Thank you. We'll let you know the outcome. MR. Neal: Okay. About how long will that be. And he will let you know, so that means you will have to let me know once they let you know. MR. KOWALSKI: I have to meet with the Superintendent, and so within two weeks. MR. NEAL: Okay. Until then you just go back to doing what you have been doing. MS. HARRISON: Okay. MR. NEAL: All right. Appreciate it. Ms. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Mr. NEAL: Thank you. (emphasis supplied).15 The plea for leniency that Mr. Neal made on behalf of Respondent proved to be unsuccessful. On October 30, 2009, Broward County Superintendent of Schools Notter issued an Administrative Complaint recommending that Respondent be terminated for the "falsification" of attendance records and mileage vouchers described in Investigator Davidson's Investigative Report (conduct that Respondent had admitted, at the October 5, 2009, "pre-disciplinary conference," she had engaged in).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a professional service contract school social worker with the School Board for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of November, 2010.
The Issue Is Respondent school teacher guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety? Is Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kelly L. Bradley, Florida Teaching Certificate 768569 (expiration date June 30, 2000), is a certificated teacher in the State of Florida and held a teaching certificate in 1998-1999. She taught at Lola M. Culver Elementary School during the 1998-1999 school year and was an employee of Petitioner Duval County School Board. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner from January 1996 through October 1996, as a substitute teacher at several elementary schools and was employed full time at Lola Culver commencing October 1996, teaching emotionally handicapped students. This was her first full-time job as a teacher. She received satisfactory evaluations with favorable comments for each of her three years at Lola Culver. She has no record of prior discipline. During most of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent and Kristy L. James, another certificated teacher, were co-sponsors of the School Safety Patrol at Lola Culver. Respondent volunteered to replace another co-sponsor who left in mid-year. This was her first experience as a Safety Patrol co-sponsor. A "reward" trip near the end of each school year was traditional for Lola Culver's Safety Patrol members. Ms. James had been a co-sponsor of the Safety Patrol for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 school years, but neither she nor Respondent had received any significant instruction in the duties and responsibilities of sponsors. Near the end of the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. James and Respondent planned an overnight trip to Orlando for Safety Patrol members for June 4-5, 1999, a Friday and a Saturday. Ms. James exclusively handled the paperwork for approval of the June 4-5, 1999, field trip by Lola Culver's current principal, Carolyn Davis. She also exclusively handled the permission slips and medical authorizations signed by parents and all arrangements for "chaperones." Swimming had been on the agenda sent home by Ms. James and approved by the prior principal in each of the previous school years. Swimming was also on the 1999 agenda, which instructed students to pack a swimsuit. For the 1999 trip, Ms. James also sent another document, outlining the cost of the field trip for students and soliciting chaperones, and permission slips/medical releases to all the children's parents. Only the agenda mentioned swimming. The permission slip did not expressly mention swimming or solicit information about a child's ability to swim. It solicited only health information and authority to treat in an emergency. Eight fifth grade students (boys and girls) went on the trip, including Litoria Gibson, a non-swimmer, who ultimately drowned while on the field trip. Nowhere on the signed permission slip returned to Ms. James did Litoria's parents state that she could not swim or should not swim. Unbeknownst to anyone concerned, Litoria's mother had instructed Litoria "not to get in the water" during the field trip.1 Respondent and Ms. James went on the trip as co- sponsors and as chaperones. Respondent invited a personal friend and substitute teacher, Eric Lee, to go on the trip as a chaperone. Ms. James' husband, Joey, came along in the same capacity, and two parents, Gail Brown and Hazel Morningstar, also went on the trip. Hazel Morningstar testified that she had considered herself present on the trip only to watch her own son and, based on an oral promise to Rita Whorten's parents, to watch Rita Whorten. In a conversation during the planning stages, Ms. James stated that Rita Whorten would be "with" Ms. Morningstar and her son. At no time material did Ms. Morningstar affirmatively notify anyone she would not act as a group chaperone. In fact, she considered herself to be a chaperone. Gail Brown is the mother of Marcus Brown, one of the Safety Patrol students. Ms. Brown testified that she only went on the trip because she does not allow her son to go on trips involving water by himself, even though Marcus knows how to swim. She further testified that she did not feel any chaperoning responsibility toward any child but her own. However, she knew the teachers would assume that she was going to chaperone all the children, and she never affirmatively notified anyone that she would not act as a group chaperone. The group traveled via a school bus, driven by Petitioner's approved bus driver, Patricia Benton. Ms. Benton was paid for driving the bus, but personally paid for her teenage son, whom she brought along on the trip. Ms. James had asked Ms. Benton to drive the bus, and Ms. Benton's son's inclusion in the trip was in the nature of a "perk" for Ms. Benton. Ms. Benton's son was never considered either a responsible adult or a chaperone. Ms. Benton had accompanied Ms. James and the Safety Patrol on a similar field trip at the end of the 1997-1998 school year and had participated in watching over the children at that time. However, herein, Ms. Benton testified that on the 1999 trip she considered herself only along to drive the bus and watch over her own son. Indeed, neither Ms. James nor Respondent counted Ms. Benton as a "chaperone" in calculating the "one chaperone per every ten children" that they understood to be Petitioner's requirement for field trips. Nonetheless, both teachers considered Ms. Benton to be another responsible adult. Ms. Benton admitted that at times on this trip she was prepared, if necessary, to discipline any disrespectful children. Neither teacher inquired of Ms. Benton if she could or would swim. Respondent and Ms. James considered themselves, Joey James, Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Morningstar to be chaperones. Neither teacher ever inquired of Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Morningstar whether they could or would swim. This was Respondent's first overnight field trip. As teachers and Safety Patrol co-sponsors, Respondent and Ms. James regarded themselves as jointly responsible and in charge. Everyone else appears to have looked to Ms. James for leadership. The bus departed from Lola Culver Elementary School at 7:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 1999. After arriving in Orlando, the group spent most of the day at Sea World. While the group was at Sea World, Respondent and Ms. James assigned responsibility for specific children to specific adults, except for the bus driver, Ms. Benton. No adult protested the assignments. At Sea World, Respondent and Eric Lee were responsible for Litoria Gibson and Makia Hicks. These assignments were essentially designed to keep everyone together and to keep the children under supervision in the amusement park, but they were not intended to last beyond the Sea World portion of the trip. However, no reassignment of responsibility for any child occurred after the group departed Sea World. In the late afternoon, the group was bused to Howard Johnson's South International, a motel. After they checked in, the students were allowed to go swimming in the motel pool. Upon arrival at the motel at approximately 5:45 p.m., room keys were distributed, and it was agreed that adults and children would meet by Ms. James' room, which fronted on the pool area. The children were instructed not to go to the pool until the adults were ready. The pool at the motel was a very large one located in an interior courtyard. The water was 3.5 feet deep at the shallow end and 5.5 feet deep at the deep end. No lifeguard was provided. Nonetheless, the pool had been used safely for the 1998 Safety Patrol field trip, and Ms. James and Ms. Benton were familiar with the motel layout and the pool. Ms. James considered herself a good swimmer, having been a swimmer since childhood. She was comfortable around water. Respondent was an experienced swimmer and athlete. She had learned to swim in early childhood, had had formal lessons during high school, and had done a lot of pool training in connection with playing college volleyball. She had continued to swim regularly in her adult life. She was trained in CPR. Some of the adults, including Respondent, and all of the children met as agreed and proceeded to the pool area. Prior to going to the pool, Respondent briefed all the children on not running or wrestling in the pool and pool area. Initially, Ms. James remained in her room to make a telephone report to Lola Culver's principal, Carolyn Davis. Joey James and Ms. Morningstar arrived at the pool dressed to swim. Litoria Gibson went to poolside wearing a red jumpsuit which would not be considered an unusual item for a child to wear to go swimming. The children entered the pool for the first time at approximately 6:00 p.m., under the direct supervision of Joey James and Ms. Morningstar, who got into the pool's shallow end with some of them. Ms. Morningstar asked who could not swim. Litoria Gibson and another girl raised their hands. Litoria said, "I can't swim." She never volunteered that she was not allowed in the water. Ms. Morningstar told the two girls that they should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Litoria Gibson was tall for her age, approximately the same height as Ms. Morningstar. Ms. Morningstar invited Litoria into the pool and spent 15-30 minutes with her in the pool's shallow end. They squatted to get wet and acclimated to the water. Ms. Morningstar showed Litoria how to stand so that the water only reached her chest and how to doggie paddle and told Litoria that if she got in trouble she could lie flat on her back and float. Litoria then felt comfortable in the water and, giggling happily, entered into dunking games with the other children. When Ms. Morningstar left the pool for the sauna, she warned Litoria to stay in the shallow end of the pool, only chest-high in the water, or get out of the pool altogether. Ms. Morningstar assumed that all the parents' respective permission slips would have alerted the teachers as to which children could or could not swim, so she did not tell anyone which students could not swim. At various times before 7:30 p.m., Joey James and Ms. Morningstar disciplined students by taking away water toys and calming rowdy behavior. Eric Lee arrived at the pool dressed to swim and able to swim shortly after the children entered the pool, but he stayed on the sidelines at the deep end and would not enter the pool. Respondent arrived at the pool dressed to swim and swam a little while Ms. Morningstar was in the shallow end and Joey James was in the deep end. Makia Hicks got into the pool with Respondent and said "Can you stand in here with me?" Respondent questioned Makia, and determining that Makia indeed could not swim, Respondent told her, "Well, you can come in here and I'll show you how to kick your feet." Respondent did not overhear the similar conversation between Litoria and Ms. Morningstar. (See Finding of Facts 33- 34). Later, Respondent got out of the pool and took Makia and Jessica Hayes to the hot tub. She made sure Makia got out of the pool at that time. Respondent, Makia, and Jessica then returned to the pool and were playing around. Ms. James, dressed to swim, arrived at the pool about the time Ms. Morningstar first went to the sauna. Mesdames Brown and Benton arrived poolside sometime after everyone else and remained there for most of the time until 7:30 p.m., in adjoining chairs and approximately midway between the deep and shallow ends of the pool. During this period, Ms. Benton made several trips to and from the jacuzzi and Ms. Brown made at least one trip to and from her room. Neither woman was dressed to swim. By their own accounts, both women were adequate but not trained swimmers, and neither of them intended to swim. When Ms. James arrived poolside, Respondent got out of the pool and she and Ms. James chatted in adjoining poolside chairs on the side opposite from Mesdames Brown and Benton. Makia sat on the edge of the pool with her feet in the water. Fifteen to 20 minutes after arriving poolside, Ms. Brown overheard that Litoria and one other child (she was not sure which child) could not swim. When Ms. Brown heard this, Litoria was already "walking the wall" (moving via her hands on the lip of the pool wall) into the deep end of the pool. Ms. Brown asked Litoria if she could swim and when Litoria said she could not swim, Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end of the pool. At least twice more before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end from the deep end, but Ms. Brown did not alert anyone else that Litoria was venturing into the deep end. She also assumed that Litoria's parents had informed the teachers that Litoria could not swim, so she did not tell anyone that information either. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ms. Benton overheard or otherwise figured out that Litoria could not swim. She also assumed that Ms. James and Respondent knew Litoria could not swim and therefore, she did not mention it to them. After being poolside for awhile, Ms. James and Respondent went to Ms. James's room to telephone for pizza for everyone's dinner. Where, precisely, each of the other adults were during this brief period of time is in some dispute, and it may be that Ms. James and/or Respondent came and went from Ms. James's room more than once. Ms. James and Respondent did not specifically designate any adult to be in charge at the pool in their absence(s). Nonetheless, by all accounts, Mesdames Brown and Benton were fully dressed in poolside chairs most of this time and Joey James, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Morningstar were in and around the pool most of this period of time. Later, when it was anticipated that the pizza delivery man would be arriving, Ms. James and Respondent again left the poolside together. As they walked past Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton, Ms. James said, "We're going for the pizza." Neither Ms. James nor Respondent gave any specific instructions concerning the students. Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton acknowledged that they had heard Ms. James say that both teachers were leaving the pool area. Ms. James and Respondent left the pool area and entered a motel corridor off a door leading to the pool area. The children and pool area could not be adequately observed and monitored from this motel corridor. Joey James and Mr. Lee arrived in the corridor simultaneously with the two teachers. Ms. James gave the men instructions to go to the bus and retrieve a cooler of soft drinks and take the cooler to the picnic area at the far end of the pool. Ms. Morningstar arrived in the corridor in time to hear the foregoing instructions concerning the cooler. This meant there were now five adults not watching the children. Respondent then gave Ms. Morningstar enough specially-printed T-shirts for all members of the party, told her the T-shirts would be distributed during dinner, and asked her to take the T-shirts to the picnic area and set up for dinner. Respondent also asked Ms. Morningstar to "check on the kids."2 Ms. James and Respondent assumed the foregoing instruction meant that a third adult (Morningstar) would then be joining the two adults (Brown and Benton) already poolside to watch over and protect the eight students. Ms. Morningstar immediately went to the pool area, carrying the T-shirts. Ms. James, who had the money to pay the delivery man, and Respondent immediately went up an interior hallway toward the hotel lobby to await the pizza delivery man. The six pizzas Ms. James had ordered would require two people to carry them all, but additionally, Respondent wanted to talk to Ms. James alone because she had a concern and planned to defer to Ms. James's field trip experience as a long-time Safety Patrol sponsor.3 On her way to the picnic area, Ms. Morningstar found all the children, including Litoria, in the deep end of the pool. Most were playing dunking games. Apparently, Litoria sometimes participated in dunking, but when Ms. Morningstar spotted her, Litoria was holding onto the pool wall. She was blowing bubbles in the water between her outstretched arms and occasionally pushing off a few inches, floating on her face, and then grabbing the wall again. Ms. Morningstar said, "Litoria, are you sure you feel comfortable? Because you don't know how to swim." Litoria replied, "No, ma'am, I feel comfortable. I'm here with everybody and everybody's beside me." Ms. Morningstar did not consider Litoria in danger as close to the wall as she was, with children near her in the pool, and with Ms. Brown, Ms. Benton, and other adult strangers nearby. She proceeded to the picnic area, passing Brown and Benton in their chairs, and telling them she was going to set up for pizza. At about this time, a few minutes before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown was approached by a little girl who wanted to get her pool shoes from her room. Ms. Brown told the child to get her key and she would go with her so that the child would not be alone in a motel room. As they rounded a corner of the deep end of the pool, Ms. Brown spotted another little girl clinging to the side and sobbing, "She tried to drown me!" Then there was a clamor from the other children and Ms. Brown noticed that Litoria, in her red outfit, was floating face down, only inches from the edge of the pool. Just then, Ms. Benton approached and also saw Litoria. Both women screamed. Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Lee, who were in the picnic area, heard the screams and ran to the deep end of the pool to help. With the help of two of the boys and Eric Lee, Ms. Brown hauled Litoria out of the pool. The adults peeled away from Litoria's face a plastic mask designed to cover the wearer's eyes and nose, but not the mouth. The face mask's breathing tube had been lost. Blood came profusely from Litoria's mouth.4 The teachers were notified where they were waiting for pizza in the motel lobby. They returned immediately to render aid. A qualified bystander rendered CPR. Medical attention was summoned via "911." Although Litoria's pulse and breath sounds were revived at poolside, she ultimately died of drowning Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources for the School Board, holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Elementary Education, and is a doctoral student in curriculum and education. She has been a certified elementary and exceptional student education classroom teacher. In her opinion, Respondent did not take reasonable efforts to protect her students in that she failed to determine which children could and could not swim and left the pool area without making sure that at least one of the adults was prepared to be in the pool with the children, was able to rescue the children, and had agreed to accept the responsibility to oversee and rescue the children from the water if necessary. It was the absence of these precautions by Respondent that mattered to Ms. Arab, not the length of time that Respondent was absent from poolside. Ms. Arab stated, concerning the other adults' behavior on the field trip that, "[G]iven what they each understood their role to be or commitment to be - I think there's a lot of blame to go around . . .." She also described various acts and omissions of the other adults as either reasonable or unreasonable. However, I do not assign the weight to her personal opinions on these subjects that I do to her professional opinion as an educator concerning Respondent's duty of supervision and effectiveness as a teacher. There is no School Board policy defining the duties of "chaperones." The School Board did not prove that it had any specific written policy against swimming on field trips. Ms. Arab conceded that if Ms. James's prior principal had approved swimming for the previous year's field trip and the current principal, Ms. Davis, had not disapproved swimming in 1999, there was no way the teachers could have divined there was any "no swimming on field trips" policy. Principal Davis was disciplined by a 21-day suspension without pay for her flawed oversight of the field trip. This is a very severe penalty for an administrator. Ms. Arab had input into the School Board's decision to prosecute this case. In her opinion, the severity of a termination recommendation against Respondent was warranted because Respondent's flawed oversight of the field trip itself was such that the public and the School Board could have no future confidence in Respondent. Ms. Arab felt the only way the School Board could trust Respondent henceforth would be under the closest supervision and that would be ineffective teaching in the School system. However, Ms. Arab also conceded that had Litoria not drowned, Respondent's failures would not have risen to the level of a terminable offense.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, through her failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety, and of a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office, suspending her without pay for six months, and requiring her to repeat her supervised one year of beginning teacher training upon her return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Tammy Malone, violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), or (h), Florida Statutes (2008), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) or (5)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Tammy Malone, has held Florida Educator's Certificate 606947, covering the areas of elementary education and health. Her certificate is valid through June 30, 2011. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was employed as a second-grade teacher at Edgewater Elementary School (Edgewater) in the Escambia County School District. During the 2008-2009 school year, the principal at Edgewater was Steven Schubert. Anthony Boling was a third-grade teacher. Dr. Steve Schubert was the principal at Edgewater starting in January 2006 through May 2009. Edgewater closed after the 2008-2009 school year. At the end of the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent had completed her third year of annual contracts with the Escambia County School District. Dr. Schubert offered her a fourth-year annual contract for the 2008-2009 as opposed to a continuing contract. Melinda Vest was the 2008-2009 PTA president, and a parent liaison. She also sometimes worked as a substitute teacher at Edgewater. Deborah Moore, a secretary at Edgewater, heard Respondent call Ms. Vest uneducated and unprofessional. The statement was made in front of students, and was made in a loud and angry tone of voice. Ms. Vest reported the incident to the curriculum coordinator, and it was agreed that Ms. Vest would not work in Respondent's classroom. On September 25, 2008, Dr. Schubert asked Respondent to come to his office and sign a notice of a counseling meeting scheduled for the next day. The counseling notice, dated September 25, 2008, referenced three areas of concern: unprofessional remarks to two students; unprofessional and disrespectful remarks about the PTA president; and teacher complaints about disruptive behavior in faculty meetings. The purpose of calling Respondent to Dr. Schubert's office on September 25, 2008, was simply to provide her written notice of the counseling session, which advised her of her right to have union representation present. Upon receipt of the notice, Respondent immediately became loud and hostile. She stood over Dr. Schubert's desk and refused to listen to him, despite the fact that he was trying to tell her that it was simply a notice of a meeting at which she could have union representation and the opportunity to respond to the items listed. According to Dr. Schubert, he was sitting at his desk with Respondent leaning over it, leaning toward him as she continued to talk in a loud, angry voice. Despite his repeated requests for her to leave, she did not do so until he stood up at his desk, put his hands on his desk to get her attention, and pointed to the door, telling her, "Mrs. Malone, leave my office now!" He then went to the door, opened it, and stood there while she exited the office. Dr. Schubert found the incident upsetting, and spoke to his assistant about it. Respondent's memory of the meeting is quite different. According to a letter that she sent to the chief of Professional Practices Services at the Department of Education, On Thursday, September 25, 2008 at approximately 10:45 a.m., Steve R. Schubert, principal of Edgewater Elementary School in Pensacola, FL did the following to me. He called me away from my students and my classroom, told me to sit down in his office as he closed the door behind me. He proceeded to present me with a letter with a new list of lies about me on it He demanded that I sign the letter, which had three negative, false and anonymous statements written on it about me. The letter also notified me that I was to attend a "counseling session" with Steve Schubert and my union representative within the next 24 hours. I stated to him that I did not want to sign the letter because it was not true. Steve R. Schubert grew irate. He shouted in anger at me "Sign it Malone!" his entire body shook, his face turned bright red, and his veins and eyeballs bulged out. He lunged across the desk at me, bared his teeth and intimidated me further. I signed the letter and then I stepped away from his desk and he came around his desk, and raised his hand up toward me as intention of doing me physical harm. I backed away and opened his office door and returned to my classroom and students. Dr. Schubert's version of the events taking place on September 25, 2008, is credited. The counseling session with Respondent took place the following day, September 26, 2008. Present at the meeting was Dr. Schubert, Respondent, and Ms. Husbands, Respondent's union representative. Respondent interrupted him several times, requiring Ms. Husbands to caution her to let him finish. Respondent denied having done anything wrong and insisted that others were simply out to get her. She was given a written summary of the session, which she signed, that included strategies for dealing with the complaints. Evidence to support the first and third items listed for the counseling session with Respondent was not presented at hearing. Competent, persuasive evidence regarding her statements about Ms. Vest is described in paragraphs 6-7. Edgewater had a rotating schedule for lunch, meaning that classes were assigned a lunch-time location for a set period of time. Once one class's lunch period was finished, another class would be scheduled to sit in the same area. The rotation required that classes adhere to their assigned timeframe so that all classes could be seated for lunch. Respondent's class was sometimes late leaving the lunchroom area, which affected other classes who came after her. On or about October 9, 2008, Respondent's class was late leaving the lunchroom. As a result, Mr. Boling left a lunch schedule in Respondent's school mailbox to remind her of her assigned lunch period. He did not put any note or message on the schedule, but simply left it in her mailbox in the teacher workroom. Respondent was apparently offended by Mr. Boling's actions. When he arrived home that evening, Respondent had left a message on his telephone answering machine, in which she stated: I see you're a bully on your home phone, too. Mr. Boling, this message is for you, Anthony. This is Tammy Malone-Bailey. If you speak to, harass me or look at me the wrong way or put anything in my box from you again, you're going to have the police at your door. I hope you're clear on this. I hope that you get it. Evidently, you have issues with people and I'm not going to be your whipping boy any more. You need to butt out and mind your own business and stick to what you know. I'm not sure what that is. It doesn't seem like much. Respondent's voice in the message was angry and hostile. Mr. Boling was offended by the message and found it hostile, abusive and, to the extent it threatened police action, intimidating. When Mr. Boling arrived at school the following morning, he went to Dr. Schubert, reported the incident, and gave him a copy of the voice mail message. He then proceeded to his classroom for the start of the school day. In order to reach his classroom, Mr. Boling had to pass by Respondent's classroom. As he did so, Respondent was standing in the doorway of the class, and there were students present. Mr. Boling glanced at Respondent as he walked by, and when he did so, Respondent stated in a loud, condescending voice, "Don't you even," as well as other statements directed at Mr. Boling. He found her tone to be offensive and confrontational. Mr. Boling did not respond to Respondent but kept walking down the hall to his classroom. Tamara Fischbeck was a guidance counselor at Edgewater. She was in the hall when the exchange between Respondent and Mr. Boling occurred. Ms. Fischbeck was standing in her duty position in the hallway and could see Respondent, and could hear her speaking in a loud, angry, raised voice. She was concerned about Respondent's behavior, which she described as "out of control," especially in an area congested with students. Ms. Fischbeck went over to Respondent to see if she could calm her down, and told her to "let it go." The incident concerned her enough that she reported it to Dr. Schubert, who asked her to write a report of the incident. Ms. Fischbeck is a close friend of Mr. Boling's and admitted that she may have been present in a group when some teachers made statements about Respondent's teaching style that were not complimentary. She denied ridiculing Respondent on faculty meetings. While Ms. Fischbeck candidly admitted a friendship with Mr. Boling which could imply a bias in his favor, her testimony was straightforward and candid, and is accepted. On October 20, 2008, Respondent received a written reprimand, in part because of the telephone message left on Mr. Boling's answering machine, and her interaction with him the following day. The written reprimand also referenced other incidents about which evidence was not presented at hearing, but that included further statements related to Ms. Vest. In this reprimand, Mr. Schubert referenced the previous counseling session and advised Respondent that she was being given another chance to improve her performance, but that without improvement in her interactions with faculty and staff, she would be subject to further disciplinary action. Consistent with the statements in her reprimand, the bulk of the evidence presented at hearing dealt with Respondent's interactions with other staff as opposed to her relationship with her students. One student, D. L., testified regarding an incident where Respondent pulled her out of line by the arm, an action that allegedly caused a bruise. She admitted however, that Respondent was breaking up a fight between D. L. and another girl. D. L.'s testimony appeared to be influenced by who was asking her questions. Her mother also testified, but had no direct knowledge of what transpired in the classroom. In addition, it was clear that although D. L.'s mother did not particularly care for Respondent, she felt that Respondent had worked to get her daughter some assistance she needed. There was also testimony that another child, E. E., was removed from Respondent’s class and placed with another teacher because the child appeared afraid to go into Ms. Malone's classroom, and was acting out. Once he was transferred, his disciplinary problems stopped. The evidence was far from clear and convincing, however, that Respondent mistreated the children in her classroom. There are many explanations for why a child might be afraid to go into a classroom, including the behavior of other students. Here, the only evidence is that E. E. was afraid, but no competent, persuasive evidence was presented as to why. Edgewater was slated to close at the end of the 2008- 2009 school year. On March 2, 2009, Respondent received a notice that her annual contract for 2008-2009 would expire at the end of the school year. Respondent signed the notice on March 17, 2009. During the first week of May 2009, the school district sent out email notices to teachers at Edgewater of their new assignment for the 2009-2010 school year. However, Dr. Schubert had determined that he would not be recommending Respondent for a contract the following year, so she did not get a notice of reassignment. On May 8, 2009, Dr. Schubert called Respondent to his office to tell her of his decision to recommend that her contract not be renewed. He did not make the decision based on her classroom performance: as he stated in a memorandum to Alan Scott, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, all school-based observations regarding classroom performance indicated that Respondent was a proficient educator. However, "additional data gathered throughout the year concerning Mrs. Malone's professional interactions with administration, faculty, and staff at Edgewater Elementary forced me to conclude that her performances in these . . . categories was well below proficiency." Because of past incidents involving Respondent, Dr. Schubert called the Human Resources Department for the School District to request that a law enforcement officer be available when Ms. Malone was told of his decision. Alan Scott agreed with Dr. Schubert's request, and a school resource officer, Deputy Nick Harris, was sent to the school, arriving at approximately 7:50 a.m. A school-wide event called Field Day was scheduled that included a series of outdoor activities planned for the morning. At about 8:15 a.m., Dr. Schubert asked Jessica Bryan, the school's curriculum coordinator, to escort Respondent to his office. Another staff member went with Ms. Bryan to cover Respondent's class while she met with Dr. Schubert. Ms. Malone was irritated by the interruption and made the comment that "Mr. Inept" needed to see her. Students were in her classroom at the time she made the comment regarding the school's principal. When Respondent arrived at Dr. Schubert's office, she was asked to sit down, but refused to do so. Dr. Schubert attempted to tell her that she was not going to be rehired for the 2009-2010 school year, and to explain her options to her. Respondent was not listening, however. She responded by telling Dr. Schubert, in a voice loud enough to be heard outside his office, that he would rot in hell, and that everyone knew he was incompetent.1/ Respondent's conduct was loud, verbally abusive, hostile, and totally inappropriate in an elementary school setting. At this point, Respondent was either unwilling or unable to listen to Dr. Schubert. He asked her to leave campus, and she refused. At that point, he signaled for Deputy Harris, and in his presence again asked Respondent to leave campus, and she again refused. Dr. Schubert then asked Deputy Harris to escort her to her classroom to retrieve her personal belongings, and to escort her to her car so that she could leave campus. At no time during the interchange with Respondent did Dr. Schubert raise his voice. On the way to her classroom, Respondent continued to be loud and angry. She referred to Dr. Schubert as a "Nazi" and a "faggott," also in a loud voice. Deputy Harris suggested to Respondent that she could not talk that way, and upon retrieving her purse and keys, escorted her to her car and watched her drive off campus. Dr. Schubert notified the District of the outcome of his meeting with Respondent. As a result, later that day Respondent was placed on administrative leave, effective immediately, "pending the outcome of an investigation into an allegation of misconduct." Respondent signed the notice on May 8, 2009, at 11:17 a.m. Respondent was reassigned to her home for the remainder of the school year. On June 17, 2009, Dr. Scott advised Respondent by letter that, since her annual contract had expired on June 3, 2009, and she was no longer an employee of Escambia County School Board, the investigation into her conduct ceased to be active. In reality, Respondent did not really dispute much of her conduct, described above. She admitted leaving the tape recording on Mr. Boling's voice mail, but minimized its effect. She did not seriously dispute her comments to Dr. Schubert on May 9, 2009. Instead, she focused her efforts on discrediting Dr. Schubert and laying the blame for her problems at Edgewater at his feet. It is clear, from the totality of the evidence, that the working relationship between Respondent and Dr. Schubert was poor. Whether the relationship deteriorated because of Respondent's temper or because of Dr. Schubert's failure to "support" her, or some factors in between, is not a determination to be made in this proceeding. The focus here is Respondent's behavior and whether it conformed to the standards expected of educators in the State of Florida. As stated in the conclusions of law, Respondent's behavior did not meet appropriate standards.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of 60 days; require Respondent to undergo an evaluation by the Recovery Network Program (RNP) and conducted by a Florida licensed professional licensed pursuant to chapter 490 or 491, Florida Statutes, approved by RNP, and successfully complete any treatment recommended as a result of the evaluation; and impose a probationary period of two years upon her return to teaching, subject to terms determined by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent had good cause to reject the then Lake County Schools’ Superintendent’s nomination of Petitioner, Dennis Teasley, to be Assistant Principal I of Eustis High School for the 2008-2009 School year.
Findings Of Fact From 1987 until 2006, Dennis Teasley was employed by the Broward County School System. During those years, he served the school system in a number of capacities, including: dropout prevention teacher from 1987-1988; middle school science teacher from 1988-1999; Assistant Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 1999-2004; Intern Principal from 2002-2004; and Principal of Pines Lakes Elementary from 2004-2006. The Intern Principal title was used by Broward County School System to designate an assistant principal as a “principle-in-training.” The designation provided an assistant principal with additional opportunities to become involved on a larger scale with the administrative responsibilities of the school. Mr. Teasley’s performance appraisals from Broward County consistently rated him as “Effective” or “Highly Effective” in all the criteria assessed. Additionally, Mr. Teasley received or was nominated for numerous awards based on his performance or the performance of the schools under his charge. For the school year 2003-2004, when Mr. Teasley served as assistant and intern principal, Pines Lakes Elementary earned an “A” rating. For the school years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, when Mr. Teasley was principal of Pines Lakes Elementary in Broward County, the school earned grades of “B” and “A,” respectively, and achieved AYP each year. “AYP” refers to Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. To achieve AYP, a certain percentage of students from each population demographic represented at the school must achieve a Level 3 or higher in reading and mathematics, as measured by Florida’s “A-Plus” program. Sometime during the summer of 2006, Mr. Teasley either relocated or intended to relocate to the Lake County area. He applied for a position with the Lake County school system. Eventually, he was hired as a principal by Lake County Schools sometime in July, 2006, just prior to the beginning of the 2006- 2007 school year. Mr. Teasley was assigned to Beverly Shores Elementary School. Beverly Shores has a large population of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as a large population of students requiring Exceptional Student Education (ESE). The ESE population includes students designated as Emotionally Handicapped (EH), and Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH). Indeed, 68 percent of the students at Beverly Shores in 2006- 2007 came from economically disadvantaged homes and 11 percent of the students were classified as ESE. The environment of the school was described by most of the witnesses as being a tough environment with a variety of discipline problems. Prior to Mr. Teasley’s appointment as principal, 447 students were suspended from Beverly Shores during the 2005-2006 school year, with 422 students suspended out-of-school (OSS) and 25 students given in-school suspensions (ISS). Eighty of the students given OSS were kindergartners. The principal for that year was described by the Superintendent as being burned-out and needing a respite from such a tough environment. Mr. Teasley entered this environment with insufficient time to familiarize himself with staff and/or review procedures and policies that were in place. He had one Assistant Principal (AP) to support him. Mr. Teasley’s two goals for the 2006-2007 school year were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Mr. Teasley wanted to redraft the prior year’s disciplinary policy. There was some lack of communication on the status of the redrafted policy between teachers and Mr. Teasley and lack of activity by the committee responsible for the redraft. Eventually, some teachers felt that Mr. Teasley did not support them when it came to disciplinary matters and that Mr. Teasley allowed the students to get out of control. In September or October of 2006, a first-grade student brought a cellophane baggie containing a white powder to school. The police were called to confirm that the substance was cocaine. After confirmation, the child was removed from the custody of his mother, and immediately suspended from school. There was no evidence to suggest that the discipline imposed for this incident was inappropriate. In early September, Mr. Teasley placed an ESE/EH student in a non-ESE class. The student in question had been “retained” (or “held-back”) twice. As a consequence, the student was a seventh-grade-age student in a classroom of third- grade-age children. Mr. Teasley thought that the student’s development would be better met in middle school with similarly aged peers. He, therefore, hoped to have the student reassigned to middle school. While waiting to hear if the reassignment would happen, Mr. Teasley placed him/her in a non-ESE fifth- grade class under the supervision of a teacher with whom he had a good rapport. The decision to place the student in the non- ESE classroom was predicated on a number of factors, including Mr. Teasley’s desire to put the child in an environment where he/she could be successful, as well as, safety concerns regarding significantly younger ESE students being in the same class as the ESE student. Unfortunately, the student was not reassigned to the middle school and Mr. Teasley transferred him back to his original class. After the ESE/EH student was returned to his/her original class, the student “jumped” another student after school was dismissed, breaking the other student’s wrist. The ESE student was immediately given an out-of-school suspension (OSS). However, because the child was an EH student, he/she could only be suspended for a cumulative maximum of ten days, without convening a special ESE disciplinary staffing. Since the student had already been suspended for five days earlier in the year, his/her suspension was limited to five days. After this incident, the student’s parent consented to placement in an alternative school and the student was transferred to the Lifestream school. Again, there was no evidence that Mr. Teasley’s method of handling this student’s behavior problems was inappropriate given the fact that this student was a special education student and special disciplinary procedures applied to such students. Additionally, during the first semester, there was an on-going concern with a second-grade EH student who was “stalking” a female student. Mr. Teasley attempted to have the EH student assigned to the alternative school. However, the student’s mother was “dead-set” against the assignment and the student remained at Beverly Shores. At the same time, Mr. Teasley immediately informed the mother of the child being stalked of what was going on, as well as the steps that were being taken for the girl’s safety. Mr. Teasley assigned an adult to escort the EH student everywhere he/she went on campus. He also rearranged the lunch schedule for the student’s entire class to ensure that the student was not in the cafeteria at the same time as the girl. Again, there was no evidence that demonstrated the steps taken by Mr. Teasley in regard to this EH student were inappropriate given the fact that the student’s mother refused alternative placement and the student was an EH student. Ms. Jule Hand, a kindergarten teacher at Beverly Shores, provided the only direct testimony regarding Mr. Teasley’s perceived lack of support for the faculty. Specifically, she recounted incidents in which she personally sent referrals to the administration and was disappointed when a referral was not addressed on the same day it was written, or when the consequences were not, in her opinion, suitable for the incident. Ms. Hand testified regarding one incident where a student, with a history of significant disciplinary problems and multiple suspensions, pushed two students in her classroom and then threw down all the chairs around the classroom. In the process of throwing chairs, the child hit her and was physically and verbally abusive to her senior volunteer. Ms. Hand called the office for assistance in removing the child from the classroom. The child was removed and received a verbal reprimand with a warning to discontinue the behavior or harsher consequences would follow. To Ms. Hand’s dismay, the student was returned to the classroom. Ms. Hand went on to detail further incidents of misbehavior by this particular child, such as hitting the physical education teacher, spitting in another child’s face, throwing food, grabbing a child from behind, verbal defiance, swinging a metal pipe, and hitting another student with his/her shoulder hard enough to almost knock her over. During this time, the student’s parent was contacted on numerous occasions by both faculty and administrative personnel. Additionally, the student had been suspended twice during the course of these incidents. However, even with these suspensions, the student continued to have disciplinary problems. Mr. Teasley did not want to expel the student and recommended that Ms. Hand contact a social worker and counselor so that the student could be referred to ITOS, a behavioral- intervention study. Eventually, the student left Beverly Shores to attend the study. However, the year following Mr. Teasley’s term as principal, the student returned to Beverly Shores and continued to have behavioral problems. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley’s handling of this matter was inappropriate, given Mr. Teasley’s desire not to expel the student. Ms. Karen Seltzer also testified at hearing about her impressions of the discipline problems at Beverly Shores under Mr. Teasley. Some of her testimony involved the EH student referenced above who again began stalking during the second half of the school year. Ms. Seltzer’s testimony was quite confusing and based on hearsay she had gathered from discussions with other teachers who did not testify at hearing. Furthermore, she also testified that she was unaware of the actions taken by Mr. Teasley in response to the incidents she related. The Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Cunningham, observed the students and environment of Beverly Shores during his visits in the first semester of the school year. The visits were prompted by complaints he or the Superintendent had received about the lack of discipline at Beverly Shores. During his visits to Beverly Shores, Mr. Cunningham observed behaviors that he reported to Mr. Teasley as situations that should be addressed from a discipline and control standpoint. He witnessed students traveling about the campus unsupervised by adults, as well as various unsafe behaviors such as running and jumping. There was some testimony from staff that indicated Mr. Cunningham’s observations regarding unsupervised students were not isolated incidents. Mr. Cunningham also saw classrooms that were cut-off from casual observation (e.g., the blinds were drawn). He also testified that at the beginning and the end of the day, when the entire student body was on the move, he observed that teachers were not “on duty” supervising the movement of students. He instructed Mr. Teasley that during those times it was especially important that teachers be in “supervisory mode.” Mr. Cunningham did not return to Beverly Shores until just before the end of the school year. At some point around March 2007, a parent named Ms. Burry contacted Mr. Teasley about obtaining a Sheriff’s Resource Officer (SRO) for Beverly Shores. Ms. Burry thought a uniformed officer on campus would help with student discipline. Even though a SRO is not involved with student discipline, Mr. Teasley felt that a uniformed officer on campus would serve as a positive role model at Beverly Shores. In support of Ms. Burry, Mr. Teasley attended a March 12, 2007, Leesburg City Commission meeting in which parents and teachers sought funding for an SRO at Beverly Shores. He spoke in favor of the idea. The City Commission referred the request back to the Board. At that point, Mr. Teasley felt that the SRO issue was “out of his hands.” Ms. Burry began to contact the Board and Superintendent about her desire for an SRO on campus and the need for greater discipline in the school. Around March or April 2007, Mr. Cunningham was again contacted by parents who were concerned about safety at Beverly Shores. At about the same time, a representative from the teacher’s union had come to him with concerns about the administration at Beverly Shores and “suggested pretty strongly that they might file a grievance” regarding Mr. Teasley’s performance. Mr. Cunningham did not identify which or how many parents voiced concerns to him. Likewise, he did not identify which or how many teacher complaints created the impetus for the union to consider filing a grievance. None of the parents testified at the hearing. On April 30, 2007, Mr. Teasley sent a letter to Assistant Superintendent Cunningham requesting that an additional assistant principal be assigned to Beverly Shores. As indicated earlier, Beverly Shores operated with one AP in 2006-2007. The letter, in part recognized there was a significant disciplinary problem at Beverly Shores and that the school did not have adequate administrative staff to handle the number of disciplinary referrals. Mr. Teasley made the request based on the approximately 1,200 disciplinary referrals the administration had processed through April 19th of the school year and the amount of time spent on processing those referrals. Mr. Teasley stated that the time spent processing those referrals reduced the time administrators were able to spend in classrooms or on campus. The number of disciplinary referrals was due, in part, to Mr. Teasley’s philosophy of using OSS as a disciplinary tool of last resort. In his view, a child cannot be educated if they are not in school. At some point, the Superintendent became aware of the complaints and problems at Beverly Shores and decided to meet with the staff and faculty to assess the situation at the school. In May of 2007, the Superintendent held two meetings with some teachers and staff of Beverly Shores. Ms. Rhonda Lynn attended those meetings. Her interpretation of the tone of the first meeting was that some members of the faculty and staff were frustrated and searching for leadership and that such leadership should have been provided by the principal and his administration. Some teachers and staff in attendance voiced complaints about Mr. Teasley’s lack of discipline and control of the student population. The Superintendent indicated such complaints would remain confidential. At the second meeting with the Superintendent, Mr. Teasley was present and either various complaints were mentioned by the Superintendent in Mr. Teasley’s presence or he was clearly aware of the complaints that had been made in the first meeting. Ms. Lynn’s interpretation of the tone of the second meeting was that the Superintendent had breached the confidentiality promised the staff in the first meeting regarding complaints about Mr. Teasley and that the staff was very upset over that breach. Ms. Lynn admitted that she could not speak for how every teacher at Beverly Shores felt about Mr. Teasley. Ms. Lynn stated that she never had any discussions with Mr. Teasley regarding an explicit philosophy for dealing with students who had received multiple referrals. She also testified that she had no responsibilities for the processing of disciplinary referrals. Throughout the time period outlined above, Mr. Teasley was formally evaluated by the School District. Originally, Mr. Cunningham would have been assigned to perform Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. However, at the time he would have performed the evaluation, Mr. Cunningham was assigned other duties within the District. Therefore, Ms. Pat Nave, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, K-12, completed Mr. Teasley’s evaluation. In the course of performing her evaluation of Mr. Teasley, Ms. Nave made four separate visits to the Beverly Shores’ campus. During those visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss a number of different topics regarding the operation of the school. Specifically, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley discussed his policies for monitoring faculty and student conduct. One such tool for monitoring the campus was a structured system for scheduling the weekly classroom walk-through assignments by members of the school’s leadership team. Based on the reports Mr. Teasley would receive as a result of these walkthroughs, Mr. Teasley would follow up with individual teachers regarding their performance. Additionally, during the evaluation visits, Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley would discuss the goals that Mr. Teasley had established at the beginning of the year to gauge the school’s progress in the areas he had identified as needing improvement. As noted earlier, those goals were: 1) improving the academic standing of the school, by raising FCAT scores in mathematics and in the lowest performing quartile of students, all without a reduction in the scores for reading and writing; and 2) reducing the rate of serious discipline incidents by 50 percent. Ms. Nave concluded that all of the strategies that had been outlined for reaching those two goals had been, or were being, implemented. With regards to discipline, she specifically noted that referrals had decreased. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that out-of-school suspensions decreased from 422 the previous year to 221 for the current year and that on-going concerns were being addressed through the safety and discipline committee Mr. Teasley had established, even though the evidence at the hearing showed that this committee was not very active. Additionally, there was some suggestion at the hearing that disciplinary referrals may have been down because Mr. Teasley was not processing such referrals. There was no competent evidence to support such a conclusion. Evidence did demonstrate that Mr. Teasley preferred ISS to OSS. Toward that end, the ISS procedure was altered from the way it had been operated in the years prior to his tenure at Beverly Shores. During the course of the 2006-2007 school year, Mr. Teasley hired a teacher to monitor the ISS room and provide instruction when necessary, eliminated the practice of sending children to the ISS room as a “time-out” by requiring administrator approval, and required teachers to supply the child’s lessons for the periods that the child was in ISS so that the student could keep up with his or her classes. Finally, Ms. Nave discussed the School Advisory Council’s (SAC) performance rating of Mr. Teasley. SAC had given Mr. Teasley a mixed satisfaction rating at one of its meetings. At that meeting, eight members of SAC were present. Four of those members voted that Mr. Teasley was doing a satisfactory job. Four voted that Mr. Teasley was doing an unsatisfactory job. Ms. Nave and Mr. Teasley, nonetheless, discussed the issue of the need to foster a productive working relationship with SAC. After the discussion, Ms. Nave was satisfied that Mr. Teasley was taking appropriate actions to continue working with SAC members to implement changes at Beverly Shores. As a result of this performance review, Mr. Teasley received the maximum amount of points on his evaluation and met the performance criteria of that evaluation. After the evaluation and three weeks before the end of the school year, a fifth-grade student at Beverly Shores wrapped the leather portion of his belt around his hand and began to swing the belt, striking students and adults with the metal buckle. Mr. Teasley and AP Jeff Williams were called to the classroom to assist with restraining and removing the student. Once they got the student to the office, Mr. Teasley immediately notified the police that a battery had occurred, suspended the student for the ten-day maximum suspension period, and began the expulsion process. The student did not return to school that year. No suggestion was made that Mr. Teasley’s response to this event was inappropriate. The belt incident garnered media attention. Shortly after the incident, the Superintendent went to the Beverly Shores campus, but could not locate Mr. Teasley in his office or on campus. She, therefore, sent Mr. Cunningham to the school. Eventually, she assigned Mr. Cunningham, along with Messrs. Mitchell and Habring, to Beverly Shores for the remainder of the school year. The Board also authorized the placement of an SRO at Beverly Shores. Mr. Cunningham testified that within a few days of the assignment of the extra personnel, the discipline situation began to improve and the school began to operate in an orderly way. Mr. Cunningham stated that he started to do the things that he had told Mr. Teasley needed to be done earlier in the year. The actions of Mr. Cunningham included administrative staff becoming more visible on campus while students were in transit from one place to another and dealing with each and every referral on the day in which it was written. Importantly, these actions were accomplished with a significant increase in administrative personnel. From an academic standpoint, there can be no question that Beverly Shores made significant improvements under Mr. Teasley’s direction. Evidence admitted at hearing showed that the school grades from the Department of Education (DOE) based on the students’ FCAT performance for Beverly Shores for the six school years prior to Mr. Teasley’s tenure (i.e., 2000- 2001 through 2005-2006) were “C”, “B”, “B”, “B”, “C” and “C”, respectively. During Mr. Teasley’s time as principal, Beverly Shores earned a grade of “A.” Beverly Shores also achieved AYP. Additionally, Beverly Shores had increases in the percentage of students meeting high standards in mathematics, as well as an increase in the percentage of students in the lower-quartile who made learning gains. The school’s grades did not decrease in the areas of reading and writing. These improvements show that the school was successful in achieving the academic goals that Mr. Teasley had identified at the beginning of the year. It should also be noted that such improvements were also due to the efforts of teachers and other staff at the school. Due to this achievement, Mr. Teasley was one of only 92 principals in the state to receive recognition as a “Turn- Around” Principal in 2006-2007. The “Turn-Around” award recognizes the principal of a school which improves by at least two letter-grades in one academic year. In 2007-2008, the year after Mr. Teasley’s tenure, Beverly Shores’ grade fell back to a “C” and the school failed to make AYP. The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had more discipline problems at his school than in prior years. There was some evidence to demonstrate that there may have been some student control problems related to monitoring the passageways of the school. Those problems were in part due to a lack of sufficient administrative staff to patrol the school. There was also some evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Teasley had lost the support of some of the faculty because he would return students to the teacher’s classroom or not assess a harsher penalty for misbehavior. However, there was only one teacher who testified to support that conclusion. Other staff testimony regarding lack of support and lack of discipline was based on hearsay. Just as Beverly Shore’s grade was not dependent on one person, Beverly Shores alleged discipline and student control problems cannot be attributed to one person. One teacher’s testimony coupled with hearsay and vague testimony is insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Teasley was no longer professionally qualified to perform in some capacity within the School District. At a May 21, 2007 Board meeting, Mr. Cunningham gave a report of the actions that had been taken at Beverly Shores to deal with discipline during the time he was assigned there. He also made suggestions for improving the discipline situation at the school going forward. Some of the suggestions involved actions previously sought by Mr. Teasley. At about the same time, the 2006-2007 school year came to a close. The Superintendent began to finalize the academic teams she would recommend to the Board for the 2007-2008 school year. In fact, for the next year, 2007-2008, the Superintendent and the Board recognized the need for additional supervisory staff at Beverly Shores and appointed two APs and a behavioral specialist to the school. The Superintendent was mindful of the events at Beverly Shores and the fact that some of the faculty and staff had lost confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to lead the school as principal. She decided not to recommend Mr. Teasley for principal at Beverly Shores. However, she did not want to lose Mr. Teasley’s skills as an administrator and recommended him for a district level administrative position for the 2007-2008 school year. The Superintendent’s recommendation was accepted by the Board and Mr. Teasley fulfilled the duties of that position during the 2007-2008 school year. At the close of the 2007-2008 school year, the Superintendent again created staffing recommendations for the 2008-2009 school year. Toward that end, the Superintendent created staffing recommendations to the Board that considered many factors. The most important factor was the creation of administrative teams for each school that would serve as that school’s “instructional leaders.” Similarly, it was very important that at least one member of an administrative team be well-versed in making learning-gains, raising student achievement and school grades. Mr. Teasley was clearly well- versed and well-qualified in such areas. The Superintendent recognized that since the 1998-1999 school year, Eustis High School had earned a grade of “C”, except for the year 2006-2007, when the school’s grade was “D.” Because of the high school’s performance, the Superintendent intended to make changes at Eustis High School to attempt to address the academic problems and raise the school’s academic performance. Additionally, the school was not known for having any extraordinary disciplinary issues. Mr. Larry was the principal of Eustis High School. He had been appointed the principal of the school because of his success in implementing advanced programs as a principal at the middle-school level. Mr. Larry was also very strong on discipline, had 4 other APs and did not require additional help in the area of discipline. Therefore, the Superintendent was not worried about discipline-related issues at Eustis High School. In putting together an educational team for the school, the Superintendent wanted to place a person who had demonstrated their ability to raise a school’s academic achievement and performance. As indicated, the Superintendent did not want to place Mr. Teasley back at Beverly Shores because that educational team had not been successful. However, Mr. Teasley had skills in school improvement that were very useful to the District. She recommended Mr. Teasley for appointment as one of Eustis High School’s five APs. Her recommendation was based on Mr. Teasley’s proven ability in achieving AYP, his ability to analyze the raw performance data for AYP and to work with teachers to raise the test scores which form the basis of a school’s grade. Indeed, the Superintendent felt that Mr. Teasley was one of the strongest individuals she could recommend to Eustis High School to work with the current administration and to help improve the school’s academic performance. Mr. Larry indicated to the Superintendent that he could work with Mr. Teasley. There was no direct testimony given at the hearing of how Mr. Larry wanted to use Mr. Teasley at Eustis High School, although there was some hearsay testimony that Mr. Teasley would be placed at the Curtright Center, a separate ninth grade center that is approximately 1.5 miles from the main high school campus. The Superintendent recommended Mr. Teasley for the position of AP-1 at Eustis High School. Ultimately, the Board rejected the Superintendent’s recommendation. The testimony at hearing and the evidence admitted shows that the primary reason that the Board rejected the Superintendent’s nomination was because of the Board’s lack of confidence in Mr. Teasley’s ability to maintain discipline and control at Eustis High School. Mr. Cunningham, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Safety, testified that he did not believe that Mr. Teasley was qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School. He based that opinion on his observations at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year and his opinion that if one loses his administrative authority at an elementary school, that person has “no business” as an administrator of a high school. Mr. Cunningham did not offer an opinion on the academic-improvement functions the Superintendent intended Mr. Teasley perform in the academic team to which she assigned him. In addition, the individual members of the Board testified regarding their reasons for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Strong testified that his basis for rejecting the Superintendent’s recommendation related to the situation at Beverly Shores during the 2006-2007 school year; particularly, the perceived lack of administrative discipline that created a disorderly educational environment, and the Board’s decision in May of 2007 to place an SRO at the school. He also stated that his vote was influenced by the public input of Ms. Pam Burtnett, president of the Lake County Education Association (“LCEA”), received by the Board at the June 23, 2008 meeting, and by his conversations in the spring of 2007 with one parent and one teacher from Beverly Shores, Ms. Denise Burry and Ms. Bordenkircher, respectively. Ms. Burtnett was not a teacher at Beverly Shores. Neither Ms. Burry nor Ms. Bordenkircher testified at hearing. However, Mr. Strong also testified that prior to the School Board meeting on May 7, 2007, no one had previously raised the issue of discipline at Beverly Shores at any previous Board meeting, and that he never personally witnessed any discipline problems at Beverly Shores. Ms. Kyleen Fischer testified that she had visited the Beverly Shores campus while it was under the direction of Mr. Teasley. Specifically, she testified that she observed that Beverly Shores’ students were not under control and that they were disrespectful. Based on her observations, she felt that the appointment of Mr. Teasley to Eustis High School would create a safety issue. Ms. Cindy Barrow testified that she did not believe Mr. Teasley possessed the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to serve as a high school AP-1. She based her belief on information gathered from many different sources, including reports such as the 2006-2007 climate survey, conversations with Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Burry, reports given orally to the Board at the May 21, 2007 and June 23, 2008, Board meetings, and the fact that 22 teachers and one guidance counselor left the school during or after the 2006-2007 school year. However, she did not speak to any of the departing personnel regarding their reasons for leaving, nor did she testify as to any of the specifics regarding the above. Ms. Barrow’s belief was that Mr. Teasley had not been able to maintain order or deal with behavioral problems at Beverly Shores and, therefore, he would not be successful at dealing with behavioral problems at Eustis High School. However, Ms. Barrow admitted that she had never been to Beverly Shores. She believes that a primary duty of any high school AP-1 is to handle disciplinary issues. However, she also testified that she had no specific conversations with Mr. Larry or the Superintendent about how either planned to use Mr. Teasley as AP-1 at Eustis High School. Mr. Metz, who testified that he had never visited Beverly Shores during its hours of operation prior to May of 2007, stated that his decision to vote against the Superintendent’s recommendation was based on the situation at Beverly Shores in the Spring of 2007, his written and verbal communications with concerned parties, and Ms. Burtnett’s presentation to the Board in June of 2008. The Board re-reviewed the issues the Superintendent had already considered in creating her educational teams at the various schools and in making her recommendations to the Board. The Board concluded that Mr. Teasley was not qualified to serve as an AP-1 at Eustis High School based on very broad generalizations about appropriate discipline. The Board’s action was not based on any knowledge regarding the role Mr. Teasley would play in the Eustis administration. As indicated, the Superintendent, as is her authority, considered all of the issues surrounding Mr. Teasley’s tenure at Beverly Shores. She also recognized the successes in academic improvement achieved during Mr. Teasley’s tenure and that those skills were needed at Eustis High School. The Superintendent assembled an administrative team after discussing the team members with the principal of the High School and assuring as much as possible that Mr. Teasley could function within that team. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Board’s assessment should trump the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding Mr. Teasley, especially given the fact that Mr. Teasley had many years of good performance evaluations as an AP in Broward County and a good performance evaluation in Lake County. As a consequence, the Board has failed to carry its burden of showing “good cause” to reject the Superintendent’s recommendation and the Superintendent’s recommendation should be accepted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Board enter a Final Order reversing its earlier decision and accepting the nomination of the Superintendent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan E. Moxley, Ed.D. Superintendent School District of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On November 27, 1985, Respondent Samuel David Sorrells entered the seventh grade at Nautilus Junior High School. On January 10, 1986, Respondent did not have his textbook with him in his math class. He was given permission to get another book to use during that class, and when he did so another student took that book away from him. Respondent started cursing that other student. When a third student told Respondent to control his language, Respondent physically attacked that third student. On February 14, 1986, Respondent's apparent intention to cut school that day was thwarted when he was picked up by the Miami Beach Police Department and escorted by the police to school in time for his second period class. Although Respondent went to the physical education field, he refused to "dress out" for physical education, refused to stand where he was instructed to by the teacher, and then cursed the teacher and threatened her with physical violence. On March 17, 1986, Respondent was caught writing on the walls in the school hallways and in the school bathrooms. A conference among various school personnel and Respondent's mother was held on March 17, 1986, to determine how to best fulfill Respondent's needs. The recommendation by school personnel attending that conference was that Respondent would be better served by the educational alternative program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North for the reasons that that school offers smaller classes so that more attention can be given to each individual student and there are more trained counselors available to assist the students with their specialized needs. Between November 27, 1985, when Respondent first enrolled at Nautilus Junior High School and April 8, 1986, when Petitioner determined that Respondent should be administratively re-assigned, Respondent was absent from school on 10 days and was suspended from attending classes on 18 additional days. Respondent received F's in all classes at Nautilus Junior High School although he is able to do the work given to him. He simply does not do it.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Samuel David Sorrells to the educational alternative program at Jan Mann Opportunity School-North until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building, Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Patricia Sorrells Simpson 1321 Biarritz Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33184
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1)(2) and (3), Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), (b), (e), and (f), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(a) and (b), Rule 6B.006(5)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (o), and Rule 6B- 1.001(1), (2), and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what actions should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Jenkins holds a Florida Educator Certificate. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, he was employed as a physical education teacher at Pasedena Lakes Elementary School (Pasedena Lakes) in the Broward County School District, where he had been teaching for 15 years. Mr. Jenkins was a Master Steward for the teachers' union. He was also a member of the School Advisory Council (SAC) and was chair of the Safety and Discipline Committee, which is a part of SAC. Jill Wilson has been the principal at Pasedena Lakes for six years and has a total of 29 years of educational experience. The assistant principal at Pasedena Lakes is Charlene Hogan, who has been at Pasedena Lakes for five years and has a total of 28 years of experience in the field of education. On October 29, 1998, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Mr. Jenkins came to Ms. Wilson's office and yelled at her, accusing her of discrediting him and making things worse at the school. During this incident, Donna Blank, a former employee of Pasedena Lakes, was leaving the building and, through a window, observed Mr. Jenkins pounding on Ms. Wilson's desk and saying, "You're not my boss." Ms. Blank went to her car, but returned to the building because she felt that she could not leave Ms. Wilson alone in that situation. When Ms. Blank went to Ms. Wilson's office, Ms. Wilson was visibly shaken. Ms. Wilson felt intimidated by Mr. Jenkins and, as a result of the incident, issued a memorandum to Mr. Jenkins dated October 30, 1998. The memorandum outlined the events that had taken place in Ms. Wilson's office on October 29, 1998, advised Mr. Jenkins that his actions were inappropriate, and required him to schedule future meetings with her secretary so that she could have another staff member present when they met. Pasedena Lakes has about 900 elementary students. Parking was a problem at the school, as well as traffic congestion when parents dropped off students in the mornings. Parents would park in the teachers' parking spaces, and there would be disruptions in the flow of traffic when the parents would take time to dole out lunch money, dress the children, say farewells, and otherwise take up additional time as they were dropping off the students. Mr. Jenkins volunteered to help direct traffic in the mornings in order to reduce the congestion in the parking lots. His mode of directing traffic was more aggressive than the methods that had been used previously by the other teachers. Mr. Jenkins used a bull horn to shout at the parents to move the traffic along and to tell them to kiss their kids at home and not at school. At first his efforts were commendable, but he began to become frustrated with the job. Mr. Jenkins would yell at the parents and the students, upsetting both the parents and the students. On one occasion while on traffic duty, Mr. Jenkins, using his bullhorn, called another teacher "Deadwood," belittling her in front of students, parents, and other staff members. Sometime during the fall of 1999, Patricia Lewis was bringing her two children to the school. Ms. Lewis needed to talk to one of her children's teachers, so she dropped her children off and told them to wait for her while she parked the car. While she was parking the car, Mr. Jenkins yelled at her children, "You little monkeys, hurry up and get back to class." Ms. Lewis, a Haitian-American, was upset at his remarks and confronted him. She told Mr. Jenkins, "My kids have a name. You do not call them that." Mr. Jenkins replied, "If you don't like it, go get a lawyer, and my lawyer will win." Visibly upset, Ms. Lewis went to the school administration's office and asked to speak to the principal. She talked with Ms. Wilson and explained what had happened in the parking area. Ms. Wilson assured her that she would take care of the matter and talk to Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Lewis left the office and went to find her child's teacher to talk with her as originally planned. She ran into Mr. Jenkins in the hallway. Mr. Jenkins said, "Oh, you're the one who went to the principal." Ms. Lewis told him that she did not want to talk with him and turned away. Mr. Jenkins began to yell at her, and she went back to the office in tears. When she got to the principal's office, Ms. Lewis was loud and upset. Again Ms. Wilson calmed her down. In the fall of 1999, the Safety and Discipline Committee had concerns over the traffic problems at Pasedena Lakes and over unauthorized visitors on campus. A meeting of SAC was scheduled for November 9, 1999, to discuss these issues. The Safety and Discipline Committee met and drafted a letter which was to be sent to the parents asking them to come to the meeting and outlining the concerns which would be discussed. Ms. Hogan was on the Safety and Discipline Committee, and she edited the draft letter with input from other committee members so that the letter would fit on one sheet of paper. Mr. Jenkins was not happy with the edited version, but he did not tell Hogan of his displeasure at the time the letter was rewritten. Mr. Jenkins helped distribute the letter to the parents in the parking lot. Alice Lacy, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, was the chair of SAC, and Hogan was co-chair. On November 1, 1999, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he wanted to have a meeting prior to the SAC meeting scheduled for November 9, 1999, in order to get the teachers to form a coalition and come to the November 9 meeting to support him. As chair of SAC, Lacy told Mr. Jenkins that it would be better to send a memorandum to the teachers rather than schedule a separate meeting. Later on the same day, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he was demanding that the teachers come to the November 9 SAC meeting. He became angry with Ms. Lacy and told her that it was a personal issue and that the teachers owed it to him. He stormed away from Ms. Lacy. Ms. Lacy became concerned about the November 9 SAC meeting and felt that Mr. Jenkins should clarify his intentions prior to the meeting. She sent Mr. Jenkins a memorandum, requesting that he provide her with an agenda by November 5. Mr. Jenkins did not supply an agenda. Ms. Lacy heard him yelling at teachers outside her classroom on November 5, but did not know what he was discussing with the teachers. Ms. Lacy became concerned and sent a memorandum dated November 5, 1999, to Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan, urging that the November 9 SAC meeting be postponed until the issues involving Mr. Jenkins could be resolved. The administration met with Mr. Jenkins, and Ms. Lacy was assured that Mr. Jenkins understood that the SAC meeting would be under Ms. Lacy's direction, the agenda would be followed, and the meeting would take place in the media center. When Ms. Lacy went to the media center on the evening of November 9, 1999, she found that the media center was locked and that Mr. Jenkins was setting up the meeting in the cafeteria, where he could have teachers sit on stage with him to lend him support. Lacy confronted Mr. Jenkins and told him that the meeting would take place in the media center as planned. Mr. Jenkins shook his finger at Ms. Lacy and told her that she was making a big mistake. When Ms. Lacy was calling the meeting to order, Mr. Jenkins called out of turn and said, "I motion to move this meeting to the cafeteria." Ms. Lacy called Mr. Jenkins out of order. There was a large turn-out for the SAC meeting, and it was agreed that each speaker would be limited to two minutes. When Mr. Jenkins began to make his presentation for the Safety and Discipline Committee, Ms. Lacy felt that he was unprepared and was improvising. Several times Mr. Jenkins spoke and went over his two-minute limit. When he did, Ms. Lacy would cut him off and go on to the next speaker. After this happened three times, Susie Ruder, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, sent a note to Ms. Lacy, telling Ms. Lacy that she felt Ms. Lacy was being rude to Mr. Jenkins. After Ms. Lacy received the note, she gave Mr. Jenkins more time to speak. The day after the meeting, Mr. Jenkins ran into Ms. Hogan and Cathy Greenspan, a reading resource specialist at Pasedena Lakes, on the school campus. Mr. Jenkins shook Ms. Hogan's hand and commented that the SAC meeting had been a good meeting. Approximately ten minutes later, Mr. Jenkins went to Ms. Wilson's office. He was wearing shorts, a shirt, and a fanny pack. His purpose for the visit was to discuss sending flyers to parents advising them of the decision of SAC to require parents to obtain a visitor's pass to come on the school campus. Ms. Wilson told him that the passes had been ordered but had not arrived and that she did not want the flyers to be sent until the passes had arrived. Mr. Jenkins shifted the conversation and told Ms. Wilson that she was responsible for the rumor mill around school and accused her of changing a letter that had been written by the Safety and Discipline Committee in October to advise the parents of the November 9 SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins said the letter that went home to the parents was not the letter the Safety and Discipline Committee had agreed upon. Ms. Wilson did not know about the changes to the letter and called Ms. Hogan to come into the office to discuss the letter. Ms. Hogan brought in the disc on which the letter had been saved, and they viewed it on the computer. Mr. Jenkins again shifted the conversation to the November 9 meeting and held Ms. Wilson responsible for the rudeness he felt Ms. Lacy displayed at the SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins then shifted the discussion again and wanted the South Area Office to look into what Ms. Wilson's role was on SAC. Mr. Jenkins started to yell and point his finger in Ms. Wilson's face. His face got red, and his voice became louder. He told Ms. Wilson that she would be in charge of damage control. Ms. Hogan told him not to point his finger at Ms. Wilson. Mr. Jenkins turned to Ms. Hogan and said, "I've got an attorney, I've got the union, and I've got a gun." Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan asked Mr. Jenkins what he said. He replied that he did not know what he said and that he had been interrupted. Either Ms. Wilson or Ms. Hogan told him that he had said, "I've got a gun." Mr. Jenkins became flustered and walked out of the office. Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan were shocked by Mr. Jenkins' outburst. Neither woman could tell whether Mr. Jenkins actually had a gun in his fanny pack. A conference room was located next to Ms. Wilson's office. Cathy Greenspan, Donna Blank, and Barbara Perkins were in the conference room when Mr. Jenkins was meeting with Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan. Both Ms. Blank and Ms. Perkins heard Mr. Jenkins say the word, "gun." Ms. Greenspan heard Mr. Jenkins say, "I've got a gun." After Mr. Jenkins left the administration office, Ms. Hogan called the Special Investigative Unit (SIU), which is the school police, and requested assistance. Investigator Evelyn McCabe came to the school. Ms. Hogan was afraid of what Mr. Jenkins might do and locked herself in her office until Investigator McCabe arrived. Mr. Jenkins returned to the administration office with Sydna Satterfield, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes and a friend of Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Satterfield, Investigator McCabe, Ms. Wilson, and Ms. Hogan went into to Ms. Wilson's office. A few minutes later Susie Ruder, another teacher and friend of Mr. Jenkins, joined them. Mr. Jenkins denied saying that he had a gun and then stated that he did not know what he said. He threw his keys on Ms. Wilson's desk and asked to be transferred to an "F" school. He walked out of the office but returned and said that he wanted an investigation. Ms. Wilson told him to think about whether he wanted an investigation or wanted to work out things. She advised him that she was willing to work with him on their problems. Mr. Jenkins said he did not know what he said, but apologized for whatever he had said. Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Wilson hugged, and they agreed to try to work together. That evening and the next morning, Ms. Wilson received calls from staff members who feared for their safety and the safety of their children as a result of the incident with Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Wilson began to think about what had happened and the complaints from staff. She also saw an article in the newspaper concerning a colleague who had not contacted authorities concerning an incident that had happened at his school and had tried to resolve the situation by himself. She felt she had to get assistance. Ms. Wilson called Bruce Wagar, who is in charge of professional standards. He advised her to file a complaint with SIU, which resulted in an investigation. As part of the investigation, Mr. Jenkins underwent a psychological evaluation in April 2000 by Dr. Joel Kimmel. The evaluation report stated: Personality tests and behavioral observations indicate that Mr. Jenkins is a frustrated individual who believes he is being prevented from doing his job. His responses to the personality tests indicate that he tends to define his identity based upon his position and derives a lot of satisfaction from his job. He enjoys working with students and motivating them to achieve their potential. He likes the status and recognition he receives from his position and may have a lonely life outside his job. He also appears to be somewhat incompetent, or inefficient. When frustrated, he can escalate and demand his way. However, there are no signs of any violent behaviors in any of his responses suggesting that he probably will not act out when frustrated. He does believe in the benefit of talking things out. However, he does want to do things his way and may not respect others if they disagree with him. He also does appear to have some boundary issues in terms of not understanding where his authority ends and being able to accept the authority of others. His greatest fear is that of failure and losing his job which could represent a failure for him. His provisional diagnosis would be Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features (DSM IV 309.28). It is highly recommended that Mr. Jenkins participate in sensitivity training and interpersonal relationship programs in order to develop his capacity to tolerate others' viewpoints as well as decrease his frustration. A stress reduction program would also be helpful in improving his ability to control his frustration and developing more patience. Meetings between he [sic], his principal, and a counselor may be of assistance in improving their relationship. Mr. Jenkins has demonstrated inappropriate behavior on different occasions involving his students. He showed his paycheck to a first grade class and asked them if that was not a lot of money. Another time, he read an article from a newspaper to a kindergarten swim safety class about a student who had drowned and told the class that they could drown. Mr. Jenkins left his physical education class outdoors unattended when their regular classroom teacher failed to pick them up on time. On November 17, 1999, Ms. Wilson inadvertently referred to Mr. Jenkins during a morning announcement as Thomas Wilson rather than Thomas Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins and his wife composed a letter to show how one word could be misconstrued. The letter, which Mr. Jenkins referred to as a private joke, stated that Mr. Jenkins thinks that Ms. Wilson fantasizes about him being her husband, that she wants his body, that Ms. Wilson was a "horny lady," and that she might lose control and have sex with him. Mr. Jenkins' wife shared the letter, which Mr. Jenkins called a "nothing" letter, with other employees of Pasedena Lakes. Both teachers and parents testified that they were fearful of Mr. Jenkins based on his past conduct and that he had created a hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that just cause exists for suspending Thomas Jenkins, finding that Thomas Jenkins is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office, and suspending Thomas Jenkins for 60 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy A. Fleischer, Esquire 4801 University Drive, Suite 3070 Davie, Florida 33328 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Frank L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
The Issue Whether the School Board's decision of March 26, 1998, to designate attendance zone for a new elementary school in Orange County was a "Rule," as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. Whether Petitioner has standing to bring a rule challenge in this tribunal. Whether the School Board's adoption of a new attendance zone is invalid because: It only received an affirmative vote of four of the Board's seven members on March 26, 1998; changes to Shenandoah's attendance zones were not considered in any planning or workshop prior to the March 26 meeting; and/or the failure of the School Board to publish notice of adoption of a rule 28 days in advance of its March 26 meeting makes the decision invalid. Whether the School Board was required to provide notice of development of a rule prior to its decision to include the area in question (the two neighborhoods which had been in the Shenandoah attendance zone) in the Lake George attendance zone and, if so, whether that renders the School Board's March 26 action invalid, pursuant to Sections 120.54(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. Whether DOAH has the authority to grant freedom of choice for the residents of the two neighborhoods to pick which of the two schools (Shenandoah or Lake George) to attend. Whether the School Board's unanimous approval of the minutes of its March 26 meeting cures any defects in the process.
Findings Of Fact This dispute involves the establishment of an attendance zone for a new elementary school in Orange County: Lake George Elementary School. Lake George Elementary School is a new elementary school established and to be operated by the School Board of Orange County, Florida. Construction of the school began in the fall of 1997 and the school is scheduled to open shortly, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year. The site for the school was selected in 1995. It was originally intended to relieve two overcrowded elementary schools: Conway and Dover Shores. Staff will report to Lake George for pre-planning on August 4, 1998, and the first day of classes for students will be August 10, 1998. Orange County's other elementary schools follow the same schedule. The Orange County School District covers the entire county, approximately 1,003 square miles. The population of Orange County, according to The Florida County Atlas, was 727,760 in 1993. During the 1997-98 school year, the District enrollment was 134,292, an increase of nearly 6,000 students over the previous year. Sixty-four thousand two hundred and eight students were enrolled in the District's elementary schools for the 1997-98 school year. As of January 1, 1998, the District operated 91 elementary schools. In March 1997, Orange County School Board staff met with parents of students attending Ventura, McCoy, Conway and Dover Shores Elementary Schools in a public planning session for the development of the new elementary school's attendance zone. (This is the school that would become Lake George Elementary School.) Parents of students attending Shenandoah Elementary School were not invited to attend because Shenandoah students were not involved in staff's plans for the new elementary school zone at that time. On January 18, 1998, the School Board published in The Orlando Sentinel (a newspaper of general circulation throughout all of Orange County) a notice of a public workshop to discuss the establishment of the Lake George Elementary School attendance zone. The workshop was scheduled for January 27, 1998. The notice was published on page K-13 of the "Orange Extra," a Sunday supplement in The Orlando Sentinel and was also posted in appropriate locations. On January 27, 1998, the School Board convened in open, public session to hear staff and public input regarding an attendance zone for Lake George Elementary School and discuss options. Three different options for a Lake George Elementary School attendance zone were explained by staff to the School Board. None of those options involved transferring students from the Shenandoah Elementary School attendance zone. On February 4, 1998, the School Board published in The Orlando Sentinel a Notice of Proposed Action regarding the establishment of the Lake George Elementary School attendance zone. The proposed attendance zone for Lake George Elementary School described in this notice did not involve transferring any part of the Shenandoah Elementary School attendance zone to the Lake George Elementary School attendance zone. The notice called for a public hearing to be held on February 24, 1998. On February 24, 1998, the School Board held a public hearing regarding the proposed attendance zone for Lake George Elementary School. Staff explained its recommended proposal to the School Board and additional input was given by members of the public. At the conclusion of the February 24 public hearing, the School Board discussed the staff proposal and, based on input from the public hearing, voted 6-1 to establish the following attendance zone for Lake George Elementary School: Area transferred from Ventura Elementary School to Lake George Elementary School: The area west of Semoran Boulevard, north of Lake Margaret Drive, east of Dixie Belle Drive, and south of the Orange Orlando Apartments. Area transferred from McCoy Elementary School to Lake George Elementary School: The area west of Semoran Boulevard, north of Abercom Road, and east of Kennedy Road. Area transferred from Conway Elementary School to Lake George Elementary School: The area south of Michigan Avenue and east of Conway Road, including the east side of Conway Road. Area transferred from Dover Shores Elementary School to Lake George Elementary School: The area west of Dixie Belle Drive containing the seven most southern buildings of the Belle Crest Apartment complex. The zone described in Paragraphs A-D, above, was consistent with what had been advertised. However, staff had also recommended that the School Board transfer the seven most northern buildings of the Belle Crest Apartment complex, containing a projected 114 students, from Dover Shores Elementary School to Lake George. After hearing public comment, the School Board decided not to transfer that area. At the conclusion of the February 24 public hearing, based on input from the hearing, the School Board also arrived at a consensus that the following portion of the Shenandoah Elementary School attendance zone be added to the Lake George Elementary School attendance zone: The area north of Gatlin Avenue and east of Conway Road. That area includes the subdivisions cited in the Petition (Gatlin Place and Windward Place.) At the conclusion of the February 24 public hearing, the School Board directed staff to advertise another public hearing so the School Board could hear community input regarding inclusion of the area described in paragraph 12 in the Lake George attendance zone involving Shenandoah Elementary School which includes 104 students. On March 2, the School Board's staff invited the parents of students living in the affected area (i.e., the area described in paragraph 12) to discuss the proposed zone change at a public meeting to be held at Shenandoah Elementary School on March 9. The School Board's Office of Pupil Assignment mailed letters to the homes of each elementary school student who had been enrolled at Shenandoah and would be assigned to Lake George if the proposal (described in paragraph 12) were approved. On March 4, 1998, the School Board published in The Orlando Sentinel a second Notice of Proposed Action regarding the establishment of the Lake George Elementary School attendance zone. The proposed action specified in this published notice called for an attendance zone for Lake George Elementary School that was identical to the one formally adopted (by a 6-1 vote) at the School Board's February 24 meeting, but added to the Lake George Elementary Zone that portion of the Shenandoah Elementary School attendance zone described in paragraph 12, above. This notice was also posted in appropriate locations. The grade structure, program offerings, and educational opportunities to be offered at Lake George Elementary School are comparable to those offered at Shenandoah Elementary School. On March 9, a representative of the School Board's Office of Pupil Assignment who had assisted in preparing the proposal for the Lake George attendance zone met at Shenandoah Elementary School to explain the proposal, solicit public input, and respond to questions and comments about the proposal. At its March 10, 1998, meeting, the School Board unanimously approved its minutes for the February 24 meeting. On March 26, 1998, the School Board held its second public hearing on the Lake George Elementary School attendance zone. Twenty-two individuals addressed the School Board, many of whom resided in the portion of the Shenandoah attendance zone that was to be transferred to the Lake George attendance zone. Other options suggested by members of the public and discussed by members of the School Board included leaving the Gatlin Place and Windward Place subdivisions at Shenandoah and/or transferring a portion of the Dover Shores zone into Lake George. At the conclusion of the second public hearing on March 26, 1998, after public discussion by members of the School Board, a roll-call vote was conducted and the members voted, 4-3, in favor of the advertised proposal. The chairman declared that the motion was approved. Subsequently, the meting adjourned. At its April 14, 1998, meeting the School Board unanimously approved its meetings for the March 26 meeting. In relevant part, the minutes state: The motion passed with a majority vote of 4-3. Prior to October 25, 1993, the School Board had adopted Policy BG stating: The School Board shall determine and adopt such rules as are deemed necessary for efficient operation and general improvement of the school system. These rules may be amended, repealed or a new rule adopted as hereinafter prescribed. The term "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. * * * Unless an emergency exists any proposal relating to a rule amendment, the repeal of any rule or the adoption of a new rule shall be presented in writing to the School Board including a written explanation of the proposal. * * * Any person who is substantially affected by a proposed rule, rule amendment or the repeal of a rule may within 21 days following notice of intent to adopt, amend or repeal such rule, file a written request with the School Board seeking an administrative determination as to the validity of the proposed rule action. A vote for adoption shall require a two- thirds affirmative vote (five of the total membership of the School Board.) The formal adoption of policies shall be recorded in the minutes of the School Board. Only those written statements so adopted and recorded shall be regarded as official School Board policy. This School Board rule was in effect at all times material to this proceeding, as were the following policies: BBA, BEDH, BGC and CB. Each member of the School Board took an oath of office to "Perform the duties of Member, School Board of Orange County." On May 12, 1998, Petitioner addressed the School Board, He said that the Board had failed to follow Policy BG (requiring a two-thirds affirmative vote to adopt the modifications to the Lake George Elementary School attendance zone made at the Board's March 26 meeting) and had failed to give proper notice of its adoption of that proposal in that Shenandoah's attendance zone was never considered in the planning/workshop meetings and the advertisement was published only 22 days before the vote. He requested that the Board take action to correct those deficiencies. Petitioner filed his Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the School Board on May 29, 1998. At Petitioner's request, the School Board forwarded the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 18, 1998. On July 1, 1998, the School Board published in The Orlando Sentinel a Notice of Proposed Action regarding the establishment of the Lake George attendance zone which would affect Lake George, Dover Shores, Senandoah, Ventura, McCoy and Conway Elementary Schools. This proposal is the same as was approved by a 4-3 vote on March 26, 1998.
