Findings Of Fact At the administrative hearing which was scheduled for the time and place shown above, Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., father of the minor student named as Respondent herein, announced that his son, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., had been moved to Los Angeles, California, by his Mother. The student, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., has been enrolled in the school system of Los Angeles, and removed from the Dade County School system. The principal at South Miami Junior High School where Carlos Viciedo, Jr., was enrolled prior to the transfer to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South, verified that papers have been received from the Los Angeles, California, school system to demonstrate that the student has requested a transfer from the schools in Dade County to the schools in Los Angeles. Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., plans to join his family in Los Angeles, and the enrollment of his son in the school system there is permanent.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County dismiss the proceeding it initiated to effect a transfer of the Respondent, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., from South Miami Junior High School to the Alternative Education Program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 17th day of February, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Suite 300 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Carlos Viciedo, Sr. 1122 Southwest 134th Place Miami, Florida 33183 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public School 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Overhoff began his employment with the School District on October 20, 2006, as a roofer in the School District’s maintenance department. As a roofer, Mr. Overhoff’s job duties included maintaining and repairing roofs of the School District’s schools and ancillary buildings. His duties also included procuring roofing materials needed on a job, when those materials were not available at the maintenance department’s central warehouse. The School District hired private contracting companies to do major roof repair, and Mr. Overhoff’s duties included meeting with the contractors to discuss the contract work being performed. At all times relevant to this case, Mr. Overhoff was a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC). During June 27, 2008, through July 11, 2008, Mr. Overhoff resided at 4613 Vinsetta Avenue, North Fort Myers, Florida. Mr. Overhoff’s work hours were from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with a 30-minute unpaid lunch break and a 15-minute paid break in the morning and a 15-minute paid break in the afternoon. Mr. Overhoff reported to the School District’s maintenance office each morning to receive his work assignments for the day. Each employee was assigned more than eight hours of work to ensure that each employee would have sufficient work for the entire day. After receiving his work assignments, Mr. Overhoff gathered the materials he needed for his jobs that day and traveled to the various locations in the county to work on the School District’s buildings. He was expected to return to the School District’s maintenance office by 3:00 p.m. each day to complete the paper work for the roofing work that had been performed that day and to conference with his supervisors concerning work assignments. Mr. Overhoff was assigned a white pick-up truck owned by the School District and designated as M404. Mr. Overhoff was to use this vehicle to go to his work assignments pursuant to The School Board of Lee County Policy 7.04, which provides that employees who drive School District vehicles “shall [u]se the vehicle strictly for approved District business.” Sometime in April 2008, the School District received a call from a neighbor of Mr. Overhoff, who reported that a School District vehicle was parked in Mr. Overhoff’s driveway during work hours. Donald Easterly, the director of Maintenance Services for the School District, met with Mr. Overhoff in April 2008 to discuss the telephone call. Mr. Easterly made Mr. Overhoff aware that the use of a School District vehicle for personal use was prohibited and that personal business could not be conducted during work hours unless it was during a break. The School Board of Lee County Policy 5.33 prohibits the transaction of personal business on school time and provides: The following rules, regulations and guidelines are to be used to prohibit personal business on school time. No employee of the School District may conduct personal business on school time except for emergencies approved by the principal or Superintendent. No School District equipment or supplies shall be used to conduct personal business or any other activity not connected with the School District. During the time relevant to this case, employees in the maintenance department were allowed to stop at restaurants, convenience stores, and fast food establishments for their lunch and morning and afternoon breaks, if the stops were made while the employees were in transit to a job location. It had also been the practice to allow employees to stop by their bank, if the time was counted as break time, and the stop was while in transit to a job location. It was not permissible for an employee to use a School District vehicle to go to his home unless the employee had permission from his supervisor. In May 2008, the School District began installing Global Positioning Systems (GPS) on some of the vehicles used in the maintenance department. The selection of the vehicles for installation of a GPS was made at random. On June 2, 2008, a GPS was installed on the vehicle M404, which was driven by Mr. Overhoff. The superintendent of the School District has alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment that Mr. Overhoff used a School District vehicle for his personal use on June 27, June 30, July 1, July 2, July 7, July 8, July 9, July 10, and July 11, 2008. Each day will be discussed individually below. On each day in question, Mr. Overhoff was driving the School District vehicle identified as M404. The locations to which the vehicle traveled and the times of arrivals and departures are based on the information captured by the GPS system installed in vehicle M404 during the relevant time periods. There has been no dispute concerning the accuracy of the information. At the end of each work day, Mr. Overhoff and other employees in the maintenance department were required to complete a daily labor sheet, which identified the work that was performed by work order number, task number, and description of the work; identified the location where the work was performed; and listed the amount of travel time and work hours for each work order. The time was to be listed in 15-minute increments. All locations where work had been performed were to be listed on the daily labor sheet. However, if an employee had to return to the maintenance department during the day, the time spent there was not usually recorded on the daily labor sheet. Mr. Overhoff had never been given any formal instruction on how to complete the daily labor sheet. He understood that the number of hours for travel and work should equal eight hours. His daily labor sheets did not always accurately reflect the locations at which Mr. Overhoff had stopped during the workday and did not always accurately reflect the time that he spent working at School District facilities. Prior to August 2008, the employees in the maintenance department were not required to list their break times on the daily labor sheets, and there was no requirement to list every stop made during the day. After August 2008, the maintenance department employees were required to accurately account for all their time during the day, including break times and stops at the maintenance department on Canal Street. June 27, 2008 On June 27, 2008, vehicle M404 was turned on at 6:29:07 a.m. at the maintenance department located at Canal Street. At 8:01:17 a.m., the vehicle entered the 7-11 store located at Southland Court, and, at 8:12:57 a.m., the vehicle departed the 7-11 store. At 8:31:17 a.m., the vehicle arrived at San Carlos Park Elementary School and remained there until it left at 9:19:27 a.m. The vehicle left San Carlos Park Elementary School and went to a Hess Station/Dunkin Donuts business, where the vehicle remained from 9:22:07 a.m. to 9:39:57 a.m. After leaving the Hess Station, the vehicle arrived at Lexington Middle School at 9:57:57 a.m. The vehicle departed the school at 10:16:17 a.m. and arrived at the Canal Street maintenance department at 10:40 a.m. The vehicle remained at the maintenance department until 11:01 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was at 11:19:37 a.m. at Mr. Overhoff’s home, where the vehicle remained until 11:28:17 a.m. The vehicle left Mr. Overhoff’s home and went to One Price Optical in Cape Coral, Florida, where it arrived at 11:34:07 a.m. and left at 11:37:07 a.m. At 11:43:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America, and, at 11:44:17 a.m., the vehicle departed from the bank. The vehicle returned to Mr. Overhoff’s home at 11:51:58 a.m. and remained there until 11:53:17 a.m., when it departed for One Price Optical. The vehicle arrived at One Price Optical at 12:00:17 p.m. and left at 12:01:27 p.m. heading for Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School, where it arrived at 12:22:37 p.m. and left at 12:37:47 p.m. The next stop the vehicle made was at another 7-ll store, where it arrived at 12:53:27 p.m. and left at l:01:57 p.m. The vehicle traveled past Mr. Overhoff’s house and arrived at One Price Optical at 1:18:17 p.m. and remained there until 1:33:47 p.m. From One Price Optical the vehicle proceeded to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 1:38:37 p.m. and left at 1:52:17 p.m. From North Ft. Myers High School, the vehicle proceeded to the Professional Building on Dixie Parkway, arriving at 2:01:37 p.m. The vehicle remained stationary for 16 minutes and 40 seconds, circled the block around the Professional Building, and left at 2:21:37 p.m. From the Professional Building, the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 2:30:27 p.m. and leaving at 2:43:47 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where it arrived at 2:53:47 p.m. Mr. Overhoff spent a total of 29.5 minutes in the morning at a convenience store and a service station. He spent from 11:01 a.m. to 12:01 p.m. on personal business, including stops at his home, a bank, and an optical business. The total time for his personal business was one hour. He left the maintenance department at 11:01 a.m. and could have taken his personal vehicle to run his personal errands and gone back to the maintenance department when he was finished. The locations where he conducted his personal business were northwest of the maintenance department. The next work assignment after he completed his personal business was located southwest of the maintenance department, which means that the errands that he was running were not on the way to a work assignment. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at another 7-11 store for 8.5 minutes, took a circuitous route by his home, and went back to One Price Optical. The amount of time that elapsed from the time he reached the 7-11 until he left One Price Optical was over 40 minutes. His home and One Price Optical were not located on a route that would have taken him logically to his next work assignment. Mr. Overhoff started his workday at approximately 6:30 a.m. Subtracting Mr. Overhoff’s lunch time and break times, Mr. Overhoff used .6 hours of work time above his allotted break times for his personal business. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Overhoff took annual or sick leave for this time. Based on his daily labor sheets, Mr. Overhoff recorded eight hours of travel and work time for June 27, 2008. On June 27, 2008, a lens fell out of Mr. Overhoff’s glasses. Mr. Overhoff had permission from his supervisor, Michael Hooks, to go to an optical business to have the lens replaced. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by a Bank of America to conduct his banking business. The stop at the bank was not made while in transit to another job. Mr. Hooks did not give Mr. Overhoff permission to make multiple trips to One Price Optical. Mr. Hook had given Mr. Overhoff permission to stop by his house one time to check on Mr. Overhoff’s son. According to Mr. Overhoff, June 27, 2008, was the date that Mr. Hook had given him permission to stop to check on his son at home. Mr. Hook was not certain of the date that he gave such permission, but it was for one time only. June 30, 2008 Vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:29:27 a.m. and arrived at Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. The vehicle left Dunbar High School at 7:38:17 a.m. and arrived at Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:40 a.m. The vehicle left Kuhlman Concrete, LLC, at 7:41 a.m. and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 7:55:37 a.m. The vehicle left the high school at 8:50:27 a.m. and proceeded to Villas Elementary School, arriving at 9:02:47 a.m. and leaving at 9:31:57 a.m. The vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building at 9:45:37 a.m. and departed at 9:52:57 a.m., proceeding to a Hess Gas Station, where it arrived at 10:15:37 a.m. and left at 10:18:57 a.m. The next stop was at the North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 10:26:47 a.m. and departed at 10:41:17 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Diplomat Middle School at 10:59:27 a.m. and left at 11:35:37 a.m. From the Diplomat Middle School, the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house at 11:46:47 a.m., departed at 11:56:07 a.m., and arrived at North Fort Myers High School at 12:00:57 p.m. The vehicle did not stop at the school, but drove through the school grounds and left at 12:02:57 p.m. The vehicle turned in at Kentucky Fried Chicken at 12:21:57 p.m. and exited at 12:22:37 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to McDonald’s, arriving at 12:36:57 p.m. and leaving at 12:40:27 p.m. At 12:52:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Three Oaks Middle School and departed at 1:29:57 p.m. From the middle school, the vehicle proceeded to a Bank of America, arriving at 1:35:37 p.m. and leaving at 1:42:17 p.m. After leaving the bank, the vehicle went to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 1:54:47 p.m. and leaving at 2:04 p.m. The next stop was Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:13:47 p.m. and left at 2:29:27 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to High Tech Central/New Directions, arrived at 2:37:57 p.m., drove through the campus, and exited at 2:44:57 p.m. At 2:54:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes mid-morning. At lunch time, he stopped at his home for nine minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized and was not in transit to another job location. The travel time to and from his home was eight minutes. He turned into a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant for 40 seconds. According to Mr. Overhoff, he went into the Kentucky Fried Chicken parking lot to take a telephone call or open a work folder. The next stop is a McDonald’s fast food place where he remains for 3.5 minutes. According to Mr. Overhoff, this is another stop to do paperwork. In light of his earlier stop at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Mr. Overhoff’s testimony is not credited. Additionally, Mr. Overhoff’s general assertions that his many stops at convenience stores were to do paperwork is not credible. He was given 30 minutes at the end of each work day for the specific purpose of completing his paperwork. The many inaccuracies in his paperwork do not support his assertion that he was making stops to keep his paperwork accurate and in order. Later in the afternoon, he made a six-minute stop at Bank of America. The side trip to the bank did not appear to be on a logical route to his next work assignment. Thus, four minutes’ travel time is assessed for the bank trip. The total time for his personal business was 33.5 minutes. July 1, 2008 On July 1, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:03:37 a.m. and arrived at a gas station/convenience store off Metro Parkway at 7:10 a.m. Leaving the convenience store at 7:14 a.m., the vehicle proceeded to Three Oaks Middle School, arriving at Three Oaks Middle School at 7:39 a.m. and leaving at 8:16 a.m. From the middle school, the vehicle traveled to Ray V. Pottorf Elementary School arriving at 8:36 a.m. and leaving at 8:41 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:50 a.m. and remained there until 9:16 a.m. The vehicle proceeded to Bonita Middle School, arrived there at 9:52 a.m., and left at 10:22 a.m. The next stop was Orange River Elementary School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:01:27 a.m. and departed at 11:05:27 a.m. At 11:12 a.m., the vehicle stopped at a restaurant/convenience store and remained there until 11:33 a.m. The vehicle arrived back at the maintenance department at 11:41 a.m. and departed at 12:20 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Trafalgar Middle School at 12:55 p.m. and departed at 1:18 p.m. The next stop was Gulf Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:40 p.m. At 1:48:57 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Bank of America off Skyline Boulevard. The vehicle left the bank at 1:56:07 p.m. From the bank at Skyline Boulevard, the vehicle proceeded to the Bank of America at Viscaya Parkway, arriving at 2:09 p.m. and leaving at 2:19 p.m. At 2:23:07 p.m., the vehicle arrived at One Price Optical. The vehicle left One Price Optical at 2:27:07 p.m. The next stop was the James Adams Building, where the vehicle arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:46 p.m. At 3:02:57 p.m., the vehicle was parked at the maintenance department. The stop at the convenience store in the morning consumed ten minutes of Mr. Overhoff’s morning break time. The lunch at a restaurant took 21 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at two banks for a total of 17 minutes. Another stop was made at One Price Optical for four minutes. The stop at One Price Optical was not authorized and, based on the map contained in Petitioner’s Exhibit 7, the trip was not on the route back to the next job location. Thus, the travel time from the last bank stop, four minutes, should be added to the time. The time expended on personal business was 56 minutes. July 2, 2008 On July 2, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 7:04 a.m. and arrived at the James Adams Building at 7:13 a.m. The vehicle left the James Adams Building at 7:56 a.m. and arrived back at the maintenance department at 8:05 a.m. The vehicle left the maintenance department at 8:27 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 8:33 a.m. The vehicle left the 7-11 at 8:37 a.m. and returned to the James Adams Building at 8:50 a.m. At 8:57 a.m., the vehicle left the James Adams Building and returned to the maintenance department at 9:04 a.m., where it remains until 9:26 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Fort Myers High School at 9:41 a.m. and left at 9:56 a.m. Arriving at Orange River Elementary at 10:18 a.m., the vehicle remained until 11:03 a.m. when it proceeded to the Taco Bell off Palm Beach Boulevard. The vehicle reached Taco Bell at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. At 11:47 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Edgewood Academy, where it left at 11:50 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Dunbar High School at 11:59 a.m. and departed at 12:05 p.m. From Dunbar High School, the vehicle proceeded to Mr. Overhoff’s house, where the vehicle remained from 12:27:17 p.m. to 12:30:07 p.m. At 12:49 p.m., the vehicle arrived at the James Adams Building, where it remained until 12:57 p.m. From the James Adams Building, the vehicle proceeded to a 7-11 store located off Winkler and Colonial Boulevard. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 1:09 p.m. and departed at 1:11 p.m. At 1:17 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Lowe’s Shopping Center off Colonial Boulevard and Ben C. Pratt Parkway. The vehicle left the shopping center at 1:27 p.m. The next stop was Colonial Elementary, where the vehicle arrived at 1:34 p.m. and departed at 1:36 p.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department on Canal Street at 1:47 p.m. and remained there. In the morning, Mr. Overhoff went to a convenience store, which was not in route to a job location. The time spent at the convenience store was four minutes and the travel time to and from the convenience store from the maintenance department was 12 minutes for a total of 16 minutes for his morning break. Mr. Overhoff had lunch at Taco Bell for 33 minutes. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at his home for almost three minutes; however, the stop at his home was not on route to any job location. Thus, the travel time to his home and back to the next job should be included in any break time. The travel time for the trip home was 41 minutes, and the total time taken for his trip home was 44 minutes. The stop at his home was not authorized. Mr. Overhoff’s excuse for the stop at his home was to get boots and use the bathroom. His testimony is not credited. Mr. Overhoff testified that he needed his boots to clean off water, but the job in which he had been cleaning off water was before he stopped at his home. In the afternoon, Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for two minutes and went to Lowe’s for ten minutes. The stop at Lowe’s was not authorized. The stops at the convenience store and at Lowe’s were not in transit to another job location. The travel time should be calculated based on the time it took to get from Lowe’s to his next work location, which was 14 minutes. The total time that Mr. Overhoff spent on personal business was 1.95 hours. Thus, Mr. Overhoff spent .95 hours above his allotted break time for his personal business. No evidence was presented that leave was taken, and his daily labor sheet showed that he worked for eight hours on that day. July 7, 2008 On July 7, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department on Canal Street at 7:22 a.m. and proceeded to a 7-11 at the corner of Winkler and Colonial Boulevard, arriving there at 7:33 a.m. and leaving at 7:38 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Ray V. Pottorf Elementary at 7:43 a.m. and left at 9:35 a.m. The next stop was Lexington Middle School, where the vehicle arrived at 9:51 a.m. and departed at 10:05 a.m. From Lexington Middle School, the vehicle went to Fort Myers Beach Elementary School, arriving at 10:18 a.m. and leaving at 10:22 a.m. The vehicle arrived at Tanglewood/Riverside Elementary School at 10:46 a.m. and left at 11:04 a.m. At 11:21 a.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Leaving the maintenance department at 12:04 p.m., the vehicle proceeded to Dunbar High School, arriving at 12:10 p.m. and leaving at 12:23 p.m. At 12:39 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Crowther Roofing and remained there until 12:52 p.m. The vehicle made another stop at One Price Optical at 1:12 p.m. Leaving One Price Optical at 1:21 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Taco Bell off Santa Barbara Boulevard at 1:27 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. The vehicle arrived at Mariner High School at 1:53 p.m. and departed at 2:09 p.m. At 2:14 p.m., the vehicle entered the Publix Shopping Center off Santa Barbara Boulevard, departing at 2:17 p.m. From 2:22 p.m. to 2:37 p.m., the vehicle was stopped at a warehouse. At 2:44 p.m., the vehicle arrived at Mr. Overhoff’s house, where it remained until 2:47 p.m. At 3:07 p.m., the vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for five minutes in the morning. In the early afternoon, he made a nine- minute stop at One Price Optical, which was not an authorized stop. He stopped at Taco Bell for 19 minutes. He went to a Publix Shopping Center for three minutes, to a warehouse for 15 minutes, and to his home for three minutes. The stops at the Publix Shopping Center, the warehouse, and Mr. Overhoff’s home were not authorized, were for personal business, and were not in transit to a job location. Thus, the travel time from the shopping center to his home, which totals 12 minutes should be added to the time taken for personal business. The total time for personal business on July 7, 2008, was 65 minutes, which was five minutes above the allotted break times. July 8, 2008 On July 8, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:44 a.m., arrived at ALC Central/New Directions at 7:53 a.m., and departed ALC Central/New Directions at 8:23 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at 8:28 a.m. and remained there until 8:41 a.m. At 8:58 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Tropic Isles Elementary School and remained there until 9:37 a.m. From the elementary school, the vehicle proceeded to the 7-11 store located off Pondella and Orange Grove. The vehicle arrived at the 7-11 at 9:39 a.m. and left at 9:42 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle proceeded to New Directions, arriving at 9:55 a.m. and leaving at 9:57 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 10:03 a.m. and departed at 10:33 a.m. The next stop was Cypress Lake High School, where the vehicle arrived at 10:56 a.m. and left at 11:28 a.m. From Cypress Lake High School, the vehicle traveled to Bank of America off Cypress Lake Drive. The vehicle arrived at the bank at 11:30 a.m. and left at 11:38 a.m. From the bank, the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway at 11:45 a.m. and departed at 11:55 a.m. After leaving the 7-11 store, the vehicle proceeded to South Fort Myers High School, arriving at 11:59 a.m. and departing at 12:31 p.m. The next stop was Roofing Supply Company, where the vehicle stopped at 12:46 p.m. and left at 12:59 p.m. The vehicle proceeded to New Directions and arrived at 1:07 p.m. The vehicle remained at New Directions until 1:53 p.m. From New Directions, the vehicle headed to the maintenance department at Canal Street, where the vehicle arrived at 2:06 p.m. and remained. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store in the morning for four minutes, at a bank for eight minutes at lunch time, and at a convenience store for ten minutes at lunch time. These stops were made in transit to a job location. July 9, 2008 On July 9, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:12 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Metro Parkway and Colonial at 7:23 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 store until 7:30 a.m., when it left for Six Mile Cypress School, arriving at 7:42 a.m. and leaving at 7:53 a.m. The next stop for the vehicle was The Sanibel School, where the vehicle arrived at 8:29 a.m. and departed at 9:19 a.m., headed for Bailey’s General Store off Periwinkle Way. The vehicle arrived at Bailey’s General Store at 9:25 a.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase of a 6-volt lantern at the store and left the store in the vehicle at 9:35 a.m. to return to The Sanibel School at 9:42 a.m. The vehicle remained at The Sanibel School until 10:29 a.m. At 10:39 a.m., the vehicle arrived at the 7-11 store off Periwinkle Way, where the vehicle remained until 11:02 a.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Riverdale High School, where it arrived at 11:53 a.m. The vehicle remained at Riverdale High School until 1:36 p.m. The next stop was a convenience store on Palm Beach Boulevard, where the vehicle arrived at 1:42 p.m. and left at 1:46 p.m. From the convenience store, the vehicle proceeded to Edgewood Elementary School, arriving at 1:59 p.m. and leaving at 2:09 p.m. From Edgewood Elementary School, the vehicle traveled to New Directions/ALC Central, arriving at 2:16 p.m. and leaving at 2:23 p.m. The next stop was Dunbar High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:28 a.m. and left at 2:56 p.m. The last stop was the maintenance department at Canal Street at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store early in the morning for six minutes, at another convenience store at mid-morning for 23 minutes, and at a convenience store in the afternoon for four minutes. These stops were in transit to job locations. July 10, 2008 On July 10, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at 8:30 a.m. and arrived at the Hess Service Station off River Road at 8:50 a.m. The vehicle remained at the Hess Service Station until 8:53 a.m., when it departed for Lee County Electric Company off Electric Lane. The vehicle arrived at the utility company at 8:56 a.m. and left at 8:59 a.m. The next stop was North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, where the vehicle arrived at 9:06 a.m. and departed at 9:40 a.m. From North Fort Myers Academy of the Arts, the vehicle proceeded to Hector A. Cafferata, Jr., Elementary School, arrived there at 10:07 a.m. and left at 10:47 a.m. The next stop was Ida S. Baker High School, where the vehicle arrived at 11:05 a.m. and left at 11:26 a.m. At 11:29 a.m., the vehicle arrived at Gulf Middle School and left at 11:45 a.m. From Gulf Middle School, the vehicle traveled to Three Oaks Elementary School arriving at 12:41 p.m. and leaving at 1:11 p.m. The vehicle next arrived at Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:30 a.m. The vehicle left Bonita Springs Elementary School at 1:55 p.m. and arrived at Lowe’s at Rolfes Road at 2:27 p.m. Mr. Overhoff made an authorized purchase at Lowe’s, and the vehicle left Lowe’s at 2:54 p.m. and arrived at the maintenance department at 3:04 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for three minutes in the early morning and at the electric company for three minutes. The stop at the electric company was not an authorized stop. July 11, 2008 On July 11, 2008, vehicle M404 left the maintenance department at Canal Street at 7:34 a.m. and arrived at the 7-11 store off Lee Boulevard at 8:00 a.m. The vehicle remained at the 7-11 until 8:04 a.m., when it departed for Veteran’s Park Academy, where it arrived at 8:18 a.m. and left at 9:58 a.m. From Veteran’s Park Academy, the vehicle traveled to North Fort Myers High School, where it arrived at 10:45 a.m. and departed at 11:38 a.m. The vehicle returned to the maintenance department at Canal Street at 12:03 p.m., where it remained until 12:24 p.m. From the maintenance department, the vehicle traveled to the 7-11 store off Pondella Road, where it arrived at 12:39 p.m. and left at 12:43 p.m. From the 7-11, the vehicle traveled to Mariner High School, where it stopped at 12:57 p.m. and left at 1:28 p.m. The next stop was Riverdale High School, where the vehicle arrived at 2:07 p.m. and departed at 2:17 p.m. After leaving Riverdale High School, the vehicle went to Bank of America, arriving at 2:20 p.m. and leaving at 2:24 p.m. The vehicle left the bank and headed to Dunbar High School, where it arrived at 2:44 p.m. and left at 2:51 p.m. The last stop for the vehicle was at the maintenance department at Canal Street at 2:56 p.m. Mr. Overhoff stopped at a convenience store for four minutes in the early morning, at a convenience store for three minutes at lunch time, and at a bank in the afternoon for four minutes. The stops were in transit to job locations. The School District initiated an investigation into Mr. Overhoff’s use of a School District vehicle for personal business while on School District time. A predetermination conference was held on September 25, 2008. Mr. Overhoff appeared at the predetermination conference along with a representative of the SPALC. At the conclusion of the investigation, the School District determined that probable cause existed to impose discipline on Mr. Overhoff. On December 18, 2008, Mr. Overhoff was suspended with pay and benefits. By Petition for Termination of Employment, the superintendent for the School District recommended to the School Board that Mr. Overhoff be terminated from his employment. Mr. Overhoff requested an administrative hearing. On February 24, 2009, the School Board suspended Mr. Overhoff without pay and benefits pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Mr. Overhoff had no prior disciplinary actions taken against him while he has been employed with the School District. Prior to the incidents at issue, Mr. Overhoff had received good performance evaluations. He is regarded by the director of maintenance for the School District as a good roofer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Overhoff violated The School Board of Lee County Policies 5.02, 5.29, 5.33, and 7.04; finding that Mr. Overhoff willfully neglected his assigned duties; suspending him from employment without pay from February 24, 2009, to September 30, 2009; and placing him on probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 13th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment as an educational paraprofessional, based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the facts stipulated by the parties, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. The School Board is located at 2055 Central Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida 33901. The School Board's Florida Administrative Code identification code is 6GX-36. The School Board has the authority to terminate and/or suspend educational support personnel without pay and benefits pursuant to Subsections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.40(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).1 Respondent has been employed by the School Board since August 27, 1998, with the exception of a break in service during the period from February 24, 1999, through September 27, 2000. Currently, Respondent is employed as an educational paraprofessional at Alternative Learning Center ("ALC") High School. He was previously employed as a bus attendant. Respondent has always received satisfactory performance assessments and has never before been the subject of discipline by the School Board. Respondent's current home address is 3971 Wheaton Court, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. Respondent is an "educational support employee," as defined by Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and is a member of the support personnel bargaining unit ("SPALC") that is covered by a collective bargaining agreement between SPALC and the School Board. The standard for discipline of support personnel is "just cause" pursuant to Article 7 of the SPALC Agreement. On or about August 12, 2005, David LaRosa, the principal of ALC High School, contacted Gregory Adkins, executive director of Human Resources and Employee Relations, to report two recent conversations regarding Respondent. Both conversations concerned alleged inappropriate interaction by Respondent with two female students. On the basis of the information reported to Mr. LaRosa, an investigation into the matter was conducted. During the course of the investigation, the District became aware that Respondent had fathered a child and that the child's mother was a senior at Cypress Lake High School at the time the child was conceived. The child was born on December 10, 2002. Respondent denied knowing that the mother was a student when they met at a Dr. Martin Luther King celebration in January 2002, or when they met again on February 14, 2002. The mother of the child turned 18 on February 14, 2002. Respondent was 23 years old at the time.2 On September 7, 2005, the School Board determined that probable cause existed to impose disciplinary action against Respondent for engaging in a sexual relationship with a student. Also, on September 7, 2005, a certified letter was sent to Respondent, advising him of the probable cause determination and that a recommendation would be made to the superintendent that Respondent be terminated. The School Board did not, during the time in question, have a policy or regulation specifically prohibiting a sexual relationship between an employee and a student. The School Board provided no notice to employees that a sexual relationship with a student could result in disciplinary action. No evidence was presented that Respondent's alleged misconduct had any adverse impact on the School Board or on Respondent's work performance. Respondent continued to work for the School Board for more than two and a half years after his child's birth without incident and with satisfactory performance evaluations. Respondent's child was born ten months after the mother's eighteenth birthday, meaning there is no evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual relations with the mother when she was a minor. No evidence was presented to contradict Respondent's claim that he was unaware that the woman was a high school student at the time they had sexual relations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding him back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner based on alleged incompetence under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056; and/or whether termination of employment is warranted because Respondent failed to correct performance deficiencies under section 1012.34(3).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees at Bayside, Lockmar, and other schools in Brevard County. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was an art teacher in the Brevard County school system. Respondent worked at several different schools in Brevard County, including Bayside, Lockmar, Sea Park Elementary, Endeavor Elementary, and Indialantic Elementary. He taught at Bayside from 2003 until 2010, and then was transferred to Lockmar for the 2010-2011 school year. Respondent was given an annual evaluation each year at the school where he was teaching. Annual evaluations are used for the purpose of reviewing and critiquing a teacher's performance in the classroom. An annual review determines whether the teacher is "effective," "needs improvement," or "unsatisfactory" for the school year at issue. While at Bayside, Respondent's annual evaluations were generally "effective," meaning he was teaching in a fashion deemed satisfactory by the administrators. Mr. Tuttle, the principal, considered him an effective teacher, but he did not personally perform Respondent's evaluations. The evaluation for school year 2007-2008 was somewhat restrained in nature, describing Respondent as "an effective art teacher who satisfies all teacher competencies" and that he "demonstrates an acceptable level of knowledge of the subject matter." In the 2008-2009 school year at Bayside, the new principal, Mr. Novelli, began to have doubts about Respondent's teaching abilities and also about his mental health. Several incidents were reported to Novelli concerning Respondent that made Novelli very concerned. As a result, Novelli began to keep an eye on Respondent and did more frequent "walk-throughs" of Respondent's classroom. Walk-throughs by administrators are an accepted means of gathering information about the teacher and his or her teaching practices. At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was given an evaluation that deemed him "effective" as to his overall performance as a teacher. The evaluation describes Respondent in exactly the same words used in the prior year's evaluation form. The effective evaluation was issued despite an incident that occurred at the end of the school year, to wit: The parent of a student contacted Novelli and reported that Respondent had kept the student's art project, refusing to return it to the student. Respondent told Novelli that he kept the project because the student had failed to pay for a canvas; Novelli found that excuse to be inaccurate. The parent said Respondent had asked the female student to pose for him after school and had given the student his cell phone number. Novelli ordered Respondent to return the art project, which he did. Respondent then allegedly began asking other students if the art student was pregnant. When Novelli asked Respondent about the student, Respondent became "very hostile, very loud, very emotional, and [he] started yelling, 'I'm not a pedophile; I don't sleep with my students; I don't do drugs, you can call the American Fence Company and ask them. I've had a drug test with them.'" These unsolicited, random comments by Respondent caused Novelli even greater concern about Respondent's mental well-being. The next school year, 2009-2010, Novelli did an interim evaluation of Respondent. Interim evaluations are done when administration believes a teacher is struggling or having serious issues which impede his or her performance. The interim evaluation was done at the end of October 2009 and indicated several areas of unsatisfactory performance by Respondent, including: Planning; Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; Responsibilities; and Student Evaluation. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form, even though a signature does not equate to acceptance of the evaluation, it simply acknowledges that the evaluation has been discussed with the teacher (which it had been). Principal Novelli observed Respondent's classroom on several occasions and found the activities going on to be inconsistent with the lesson plans for that day. Respondent explained that the words he had written on the white board (in one case, the words "Van Gogh") were his lesson plan for the day. That was not acceptable, because lesson plans should be sufficient for another teacher to utilize to teach the class in the regular teacher's absence. Some of the problems in the area of responsibilities noted in the interim evaluation were: failing to timely provide administration with a list of students who could be identified as advanced placement candidates; failing to provide acceptable contributions of his students' art work for a poster design contest; and failing to submit art work for a proposed field trip timely and appropriately. Respondent was found to have a difficult time communicating with school administrators, guidance personnel, and fellow teachers. It became abundantly clear at final hearing that Respondent would be as uncooperative and recalcitrant as possible when talking to people he did not like. His demeanor demonstrated a strong resentment of his principal and others from Bayside. In the area of student evaluations, Respondent was found to have failed to provide daily participation grades to his students, despite saying he would do so in his course outline. All of his students received an "A" grade for one nine-week period. Novelli found those grades to be inconsistent with the observations he had made in the classroom. As for instructional organization, Novelli observed no substantive instruction going on during his classroom visits. Respondent explained that students were free to stay busy working on projects discussed in prior classes, so it might appear to an outside observer that they were not being instructed. However, there was insufficient evidence produced to substantiate Respondent's position in that regard. A Professional Development Assistance Plan (PDAP) was created for each of the areas of concern set forth in the interim evaluation. PDAPs are tools used to assist struggling teachers to find a way to overcome their shortcomings and improve in the areas of concern. On January 7, 2010, Novelli met with Respondent to go over the PDAPs and discuss Respondent's progress. Respondent refused to sign the PDAP forms. Thereafter, although he was given additional time to comply with the PDAPs' requirements, Respondent failed to follow all of the recommendations set out in the plans. For example, one of the recommendations for assistance involved Respondent going to observe another art teacher in their classroom. Novelli wanted Respondent to observe an art teacher selected by the district resource teacher, but Respondent preferred to observe a teacher (Leah Andritz) with whom he already had a friendship. Novelli felt that Respondent's observing his friend teach would not be as helpful as watching someone Respondent did not know. Novelli offered Respondent paid time off to observe the school-chosen art teacher. Ultimately, Respondent went to observe Andritz on his own time, rather than accept Novelli's offer. Respondent's annual evaluation was completed on February 12, 2010. Three areas (also called "strands") were graded as unsatisfactory: Instructional Organization and Development; Presentation of Subject Matter; and Student Response. The evaluation also graded Respondent as Needs Improvement in the areas of Planning and Responsibilities. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory. A meeting was set for February 18, 2010, to discuss the evaluation. Assistant Principal Capalbo, whom Respondent trusted, was sent to escort Respondent to Novelli's office for the meeting. On the way from Respondent's classroom to the principal's office--which took three or four times longer than usual, because Respondent was making phone calls along the way--Respondent called and spoke to his union representative. The representative then came to the meeting as well. Respondent made numerous derogatory remarks and complaints about Novelli on the way to the meeting. He said Novelli had tried to have him arrested, had vandalized his car, and had attempted to engage in sexual relations with a married teacher.3/ There is no credible evidence that any of the allegations were true, but they made Capalbo wonder if Respondent was having mental issues. At the meeting, Respondent accused Novelli of recording a prior meeting by way of a USB pen. Respondent angrily threatened to file a lawsuit against Novelli and report him to the superintendent of schools. Each of the attendees at the meeting who testified at final hearing said Respondent became very agitated and angry. The union representative (who did not testify at final hearing) was ultimately able to get Respondent under control and persuaded him to leave the meeting. No credible evidence was provided to prove the existence of a USB pen or that meetings had been recorded. Respondent again refused to sign the evaluation form. As a result of Respondent's conduct at the meeting, Novelli placed him on paid administrative leave pending a review of his mental health and fitness for duty. He was on leave for about one week and returned after undergoing a psychological evaluation. A significant dispute arose between Respondent and Novelli concerning an event known as National Portfolio Day. The event was a special opportunity for art students that allowed them to have their art reviewed and to speak with representatives from several colleges and art schools. Respondent had taken students to the event in prior years. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent requested permission to take a number of his students and students from other schools to the event. His request was preliminarily approved by administration, pending several details being worked out. However, the permission was ultimately withdrawn, and no students from Bayside were allowed to attend. Respondent claims that the event was a valuable tool for students and had allowed many students to obtain significant scholarships to colleges in prior years. Novelli found out that the students from other schools who were going to the event were Advanced Placement (AP) students. Bayside did not have an AP program or any AP students.4/ Novelli asked Respondent to put together portfolios for the students he wanted to attend, and Novelli would get the artwork examined by an expert to see if the students were viable candidates for the event, even if they were not technically AP students. Respondent was given a deadline to get the student art portfolios to Novelli so they could be taken to the district office by a date certain. Respondent missed the deadline. Instead, Respondent personally hand-delivered the portfolios to the district office on the day they were due. The artwork was reviewed by an art expert who deemed the work to be inadequate for inclusion in the National Portfolio Day event. She rated the art at the lowest level of a five-tiered rating system. As a result of the art expert's review, Respondent was advised that no students from Bayside would be going to the event. Notwithstanding that decision being communicated to Respondent, he continued to act as if Bayside students would still be attending. He continued making transportation arrangements and notifying students' parents of the impending event. There were several unexplained emails admitted in evidence that show some continuing dialogue about the portfolio trip. The emails addressing this issue create some confusion as to whether Bayside students would be able to attend, but ultimately none attended. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was transferred to Lockmar. Although he had requested a transfer from Bayside, Respondent was extremely upset about the transfer. According to Respondent, he wanted to go to another high school where his former principal, Tuttle, was now the principal. The director of Human Relations Services, however, was told by Respondent's union representative that Respondent wanted to go to an elementary school. Tuttle said that his school's position had already been filled anyway. The principal at Lockmar (Hostetler) did not know at the time of the transfer that Respondent had received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation for his last year at Bayside. When she found out, she issued a memorandum (dated August 5, 2010) informing Respondent that he was on probation for a period of 90 days. The probation status, also called performance review, is essentially the same thing as a procedure called NEAT, except that a performance review is supposed to be completed within 90 days. That is, the teacher has 90 days to show improvement in the delineated areas of concern. It is not uncommon for a teacher to be placed on performance review following an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. As part of the performance review process, Hostetler frequently went into Respondent's classroom to observe his teaching style. Her visits would last the majority of the class period. She would visit classes of different grade levels and students in order to see how Respondent handled various age groups. After approximately eight weeks of reviewing Respondent, Hostetler issued an interim evaluation. That evaluation rated Respondent unsatisfactory in four areas and needs improvement in another area. Once again, Respondent was deemed to have unsatisfactory lesson plans. His instructional organization and development was again deemed deficient, as well as his presentation of subject matter. Further, he was found to be unsatisfactory in the area of responsibilities under the professionalism strand. The overall evaluation for Respondent was unsatisfactory. The evaluation was reviewed with Respondent on October 1, 2010, but he refused to sign it. On that same date, a number of PDAPs were created to help Respondent address his deficiencies. Respondent was given until December 10, 2010, to take steps to improve in the various areas. Later, when it became clear that he would not be able to meet that deadline, the PDAPs were extended to February 18, 2011, then to March 18, 2011, and then extended again to March 23, 2011. At least one of the extensions was done because Respondent was preparing his classes for an upcoming art show. On March 23, 2011, Hostetler completed Respondent's annual evaluation. It included three unsatisfactory scores and two scores of needs improvement. The overall evaluation was unsatisfactory, his second unsatisfactory evaluation in two years. Once again, Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form. There was considerable testimony and evidence presented at the final hearing concerning Respondent's tenure at Indialantic Elementary School from 1998-2002, some ten years prior to the final hearing. In his last performance evaluation at Indialantic, Principal Strong had given Respondent an overall unsatisfactory ranking. Although Respondent's performance at a different school so many years prior to the instant allegations may not be dispositive of anything in this case, it is noted that Respondent's administrators at that time had many of the same concerns as those raised by Novelli and Hostetler years later. Besides the on-going issues with less than satisfactory performance ratings, Hostetler had other concerns about Respondent as well. One issue had to do with Respondent sending children outside the classroom and instructing them to "look for dinosaurs." His intention was to keep the children from disrupting the class by their bad behavior. The instruction to look for dinosaurs was just a way of making the student sit and contemplate their behavior. Respondent claims to have learned the technique during training he took through a program called Sun Coast Area Teacher Training. Respondent maintains that he kept visual surveillance of the children when they were outside; the teacher in the adjoining classroom said he could not really do that and maintain contact with his other students. Nonetheless, it does appear that the children were belittled by their peers when they were sent outside to look for dinosaurs. Lockmar had been asked to take part in a contest sponsored by the local police department. Students were to draw pictures within certain parameters that would allow the pictures, if chosen, to be converted to magnets or other items. Respondent was supposed to have the children draw pictures related to a theme of policemen as peace keepers, then select appropriate pictures to submit for consideration by the judges of the contest. Respondent did have his children make drawings, but almost all of them failed to meet the stated size and content parameters. He then asked personnel in the front office to voice their opinion as to which drawings he should submit. Feeling uncomfortable making a decision such as that, the staff handed the drawings over to Hostetler. She ultimately found only three or four worthy of submission for the contest. Hostetler received complaints from other teachers that their students were not ready to leave the art classroom in a timely fashion. They complained that Respondent did not have them ready to go when the art period ended. Hostetler issued a memorandum to Respondent about addressing that issue appropriately. During the period of time Respondent was under performance review and addressing the PDAPs, he was assigned a peer mentor teacher, John Hays, to assist him deal with deficiencies. Hays worked with Respondent from September 2010 through May 2011, including approximately 15 on-site visits to the classroom and one visit with Respondent to another school's art classroom. Respondent made a few improvements during the time Hays worked with him, including upgrading the kiln, putting student drawings in the front office, and becoming more cooperative with others. However, Hays found that the classroom, as managed by Respondent, was not conducive to learning. The lesson plans did not comport with what was going on in the classroom, even though Respondent usually had an explanation for that, e.g., a special project was coming up and students needed to pay more attention to it than to what the lesson plan described. Hays seemed to doubt whether Respondent's reasons or explanations were entirely truthful. All in all, Hays did not see significant improvement by Respondent in most of the problem areas that were being addressed.5/ When Respondent left Lockmar, he was given the opportunity to retrieve all his personal property. At the beginning of the next school year, the new teacher in the art room discovered several pictures belonging to Respondent in the pod (office area) adjacent to the classroom. Some of the pictures were somewhat disturbing to the new teacher, so she turned them over to her principal, who turned them over to the School Board security office. The pictures depicted a person who looked much like Respondent and contained words and images that were not appropriate for elementary school-aged children (and possibly not even high school-aged children). Respondent testified that some of his high school students had made the drawings, but he would not say that the pictures were supposed to depict him (despite one being labeled "The Mighty O." Respondent was often referred to by students and teachers as "O.") Respondent admitted that the drawings were not appropriate for viewing by young children. There is, however, no evidence that any elementary school children ever saw or had access to the pictures. Respondent made some extremely unusual allegations about his prior principals, Strong and Novelli. He said Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend having a miscarriage, that Strong had intentionally caused that to happen, and that he was afraid Strong may do the same thing to someone else. He said Strong had tried to poison him by placing contaminated mulch around his portable classroom building. He said Novelli had caused him to be arrested by sabotaging Respondent's car so that he would be pulled over by police and illegally searched. He made the allegation about Novelli secretly recording meetings. He alleged that Novelli was involved in either killing or damaging the careers of teachers he did not like. Respondent requested leave to pursue a doctorate degree, but the leave was denied. Immediately thereafter, Respondent re-filed his leave request, citing medical issues. He said he used the leave to, in part, pursue his doctorate, but did not adequately explain the suspicious request for medical leave. The leave request was supported by a note from a chiropractor indicating Respondent had back problems. The note did not verify Respondent's allegation that Strong was poisoning him at Indialantic (a claim raised in Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony). There was no credible evidence to support the various claims Respondent made against his administrators, leaving the impression that the allegations are baseless. However, there was no direct showing by the School Board as to how these incredible stories directly affected Respondent's capabilities as a teacher. Respondent showed that he could be evasive and obstinate concerning the admission of even the least significant facts. He seemed reluctant to engage in conversation that was not full of innuendo, suggestion, or intrigue. For example, when asked whether he really believed his principal would vandalize his car (as Respondent had alleged), Respondent answered, "Because other teachers in the district, you know the Greek mythology Cassandra, how Cassandra would foretell the future? Other teachers in the district, as the Greek mythologist Cassandra, would forewarn me of Mr. Novelli's prior actions." When asked repeatedly if he believed another principal was interfering with his purchase of a building, Respondent replied, "I was very cautious with the information." When asked what that meant, he said, "It was worth investigating and finding out more." When asked if Principal Strong was responsible for Respondent's girlfriend losing her baby, he responded, "My answer to that is it's an unfortunate situation" and "I have a child that I wish was born and because of the politics, it is not here." Other than Tuttle's restrained endorsement of Respondent, no fellow teachers or administrators were presented to prove or suggest that Respondent could work well with others. Hays said Respondent was cordial to him, but he was not a co-worker or administrator. Respondent seems to be very eager to assist his students as they prepare for life after grade school. He seems to enjoy teaching and wants to return to the classroom. At least two parents of his former high school students endorsed Respondent as an important reason for their child's success. Respondent said he had helped some students obtain scholarships to assist with their college education, although there was no substantive proof of that fact. In his written response to the 2009-2010 evaluation, Respondent stated he would "produce over $300,000 . . . in independent scholarships for [his] students." Although he testified several times about the scholarships he could generate for his students, there was no credible evidence to support his assertion. (The response to his evaluation was well written and rational. It was not comparable to Respondent's way of orally expressing himself, at least as evidenced by his testimony at the final hearing.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Brevard County School Board, terminating the employment of Respondent, Mark Ostermeier, for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 25th day of June, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates, as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2017). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2017). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 880641, covering the areas of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2022. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at GHS in the Alachua County School District. Respondent began his teaching career at GHS in 2002 teaching ESE classes. The incident that forms the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 12, 2016, during the 2015-2016 school year. Teachers employed by the Alachua County School Board are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Alachua County School Board and the Alachua County Education Association, the local teachers’ union. Article IX, Section 21(a), of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was in effect during the 2015-2016 school year, provides that: Subject to the approval of the principal or his designee, a teacher may leave the campus of his particular school if appropriate arrangements are made to insure that students are not left unsupervised. Approval is required for each circumstance or situation. The principal or his designee will not unreasonably deny such a request. A teacher will use this privilege only in unusual circumstances. At the beginning of each school year, before students report, a faculty pre-planning meeting is held at GHS to go over information provided by the school district. Supervision of students is among the topics of discussion, and teachers are advised that they are not to leave students unsupervised in their classrooms. The reason for the instruction is obvious -- GHS, being responsible for the safety of its students, should take all reasonable measures to ensure their safety on campus. In addition to the instruction provided at the pre- planning meeting, GHS sent periodic emails to teachers throughout the year reiterating that students were not to be left unsupervised in classrooms. On April 5, 2016, an email was sent directed to the general problem of unsupervised students “walking around A, B, and C hallways” during the lunch periods. The email noted that some teachers allowed students to come to their classrooms during the lunch period for mentoring, which was recognized as a laudable activity. One teacher responded the next day expressing appreciation for the reminder, noting that “[t]here are students all over upstairs in A & B wings. They also hang out in the stairwells, especially on the West end.” On April 7, 2016, Mr. Shelnutt sent an email to all teachers reiterating that it was “fantastic” that teachers allowed students in their classrooms during the lunch period, but that students were not to be “roaming around.” The email emphasized that “if you chose to allow students in your classroom during your lunch, you are assuming responsibility for supervising them.”2/ During the lunch shifts, school employees were routinely stationed in areas where general education students were allowed to eat lunch in order to provide adult supervision while their teachers took their 30-minute lunch break. As will be described herein, ESE students were subject to a different lunchtime regimen. During the 2015–16 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach a self-contained class of 4 to 7 students with intellectual disabilities. The “self-contained” setting means that students generally remained in the Gaines building on the GHS campus with other students with disabilities. Respondent’s students were intellectually disabled, but functioned at a higher level than their ESE peers in other classrooms, who had more severe disabilities. Respondent’s students identified more with general education students, and were much more likely to interact with general education students than with those in the other ESE classrooms.3/ The Gaines building was a “community of classrooms,” in that a teacher could request and receive assistance from teachers or paraprofessionals in the other two classrooms in the building. The ESE classrooms surround a small courtyard at the Gaines building. The courtyard has a table and seating, and students would most often sit there to eat their lunch. One of the three ESE teachers usually oversaw the courtyard, and the courtyard could be seen from the ESE classroom windows. There is also a basketball court and track behind the Gaines building, which were occasionally used by ESE students before and after school, and during lunch period. The school day at GHS has six periods. Respondent taught ESE students for five of the six daily periods. During the period when Respondent’s ESE students were at their P.E. class, Respondent was assigned to teach a general education history class. Mr. Shelnutt indicated that “[e]very teacher [at GHS] should have a 30-minute duty free lunch in addition to a planning period.” Mr. DeLucas testified that Respondent was in “a very unique situation. The other self-contained rooms had multiple paraprofessionals. He did not have multiple paraprofessionals.”4/ Consequently, Respondent was the only teacher in his classroom and was assigned students every period of the school day with no planning period. Because of the circumstances, if it became necessary for Respondent to leave the classroom, he would ask one of the teachers or paraprofessionals from the other ESE classrooms to watch his class. Unlike the situation that was the subject of the April 5, 2017 and April 7, 2017, emails referenced above, which appears to describe a general education student lunch period, ESE “self-contained” students were allowed to get their lunches and then return to their classrooms, to avoid the crowds and the lines. It was apparently not uncommon for special needs students to go to the cafeteria during the 20-minute break between the end of A-Lunch at around 11:55 a.m. and the beginning of B-Lunch at 12:15 p.m. when there is not a standard lunch shift. Respondent’s only break in the school day was during his students’ lunch period, from 12:15 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Since ESE students typically had lunch in the Gaines building courtyard or their classrooms, even Respondent’s “duty free lunch” was not free of duties. On May 12, 2016, Respondent released his students -- which on that day were only B.S., B.H., and N.C. -- around 12:05 p.m. to get lunch from the cafeteria. Respondent’s students had been watching a movie, and wanted to finish the movie during the lunch period. Respondent agreed to let the students return to his classroom to finish watching the movie. Before the students returned to the classroom, Respondent received a telephone call from the baseball booster club president regarding an upcoming banquet. When the students returned to the classroom, Respondent continued the telephone call outside. When Respondent ended the telephone call, he realized that the lunch period was “counting down.” Respondent left the Gaines Building, with the students unattended in his classroom, and drove to a sandwich shop several blocks away. There was no explanation as to why Respondent did not ask one of the other ESE teachers or paraprofessionals to watch his classroom. During Respondent’s absence from the classroom, another of Respondent’s students, J.H., entered the classroom and saw male ESE student, B.S., emerging from a storage closet in Respondent’s classroom, and thereafter discovered female ESE student, B.H., in the closet crying. J.H. went to the office and told Ms. Conyers what he had seen. Ms. Conyers radioed for a dean or an administrator to report to Respondent’s classroom. Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at the classroom at about the same time. Ms. Gantt questioned B.H. as to what had happened, and Mr. Bauer went to the nearby basketball court where B.S. had been reported to have gone. B.H. and B.S. were taken to the Dean’s office for questioning. At some point after Ms. Gantt and Mr. Bauer arrived at Respondent’s classroom, and approximately 15 minutes after his departure from campus, Respondent returned from the sandwich shop. There was considerable evidence devoted to the events that occurred in Respondent’s classroom closet during his absence. All of the evidence was hearsay. However, what was established (and agreed upon) is this: On May 12, 2016, while Respondent was absent from his classroom, during which time students were left unsupervised in the classroom, an event occurred that was of sufficient severity that the police were called in, that the police conducted an investigation, and that the police ultimately completed a sworn complaint charging B.S. with lewd and lascivious molestation of B.H. Alachua County Public Schools charged Respondent with violating school board policies regarding student supervision, specifically a policy that required teachers to obtain the permission of the school principal before leaving school campus, and recommended his termination from employment. Respondent contested the recommendation of termination. On February 16, 2017, the Alachua County School Board, the Alachua County Education Association, and Respondent executed a settlement agreement, providing that: (1) the superintendent would rescind the recommendation for Respondent’s termination; (2) Respondent would take an unpaid leave of absence beginning March 1, 2017, until June 6, 2017; Respondent would agree to complete Safe Schools online training regarding classroom supervision and school safety; and upon completion of the Safe Schools training, Respondent would be returned to paid status as an employee of Alachua County Schools. Respondent fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement and, with regard to the Safe Schools training, exceeded the required courses. For the 2017–2018 school year, Respondent has been assigned as a P.E. teacher at the Sidney Lanier Center, a K-12 public school in Alachua County. Sidney Lanier is a specialized school for ESE students. The principal of Sidney Lanier was aware of the events of May 12, 2016, when Respondent was assigned. It should be acknowledged that Respondent taught ESE classes at GHS for 14 years without incident. He had no prior discipline and received uniformly good evaluations. He was well regarded as a teacher and a coach, and was generally acknowledged to have had a positive impact on students’ lives. Respondent expressed genuine remorse about leaving students unattended in his classroom, and credibly testified that he would never again do so. The incident did not involve Respondent denigrating or disparaging students, or improperly or abusively making physical contact with students. Nonetheless, Respondent violated a clear and direct requirement that he not leave students unattended. Although he believed his students would not engage in the activity described, such action on the part of a high school student was certainly not unforeseeable. There was conflicting evidence as to whether B.H.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that it had some negative effect. However, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; Fla. EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their mental or physical health, or safety, pursuant to rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be suspended for a period of 30 days, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension, which penalty is within the range of penalties established in rule 6B-11.007(2). DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 21st day of November, 2017.
