The Issue The issue presented for decision in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board, first as an assistant principal, then as a teacher, should be terminated, as recommended by Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an African-American male who attended Florida A&M University and Jacksonville State, earning masters degrees in physical education and educational leadership. Respondent served ten years in the military prior to entering the field of education. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1988. From 1988 to 1993, he was a teacher. In 1993, Respondent was promoted to the position of Assistant Principal for Discipline at Boone Middle School ("Boone"). He served in that position until July 23, 1997. Eileen Killebrew was the principal at Boone and was Respondent’s direct supervisor throughout his tenure at Boone. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent did a "great job" during his first three years at Boone. Respondent testified that he believed he had a good working relationship with Ms. Killebrew until April 25, 1997, when the events that are the subject of this proceeding commenced. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew repeatedly told him he was the best assistant principal she had ever seen and expressed a desire to continue working with Respondent throughout her career. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent’s job performance began to suffer during the 1996-1997 school year. He seemed preoccupied and less focused than in prior years. He spent more time on personal telephone calls. Parents complained that they felt Respondent was not listening to their children in his role as Assistant Principal for Discipline. Ms. Killebrew stated that she attributed these problems to difficulties Respondent was having in building a new house and that she referred him to a lawyer who handled such matters. No documentation was produced to corroborate Ms. Killebrew’s testimony regarding Respondent’s performance in the 1996-1997 school year. She did not set forth her concerns in any evaluation or other contemporaneous notation. She testified that parents and teachers had come to her with concerns, but she did not name them and Petitioner did not produce any of them as witnesses. None of the other witnesses in this proceeding testified that they had noted any problems with Respondent’s performance during this period, or that Ms. Killebrew had mentioned her concerns to them prior to April 25, 1997. Respondent testified that throughout the 1996-1997 school year, Ms. Killebrew had been confiding in him regarding her ambition to move up to a higher administrative position in the school district. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent that she had applied for two area superintendent positions, and later that she was a finalist for one of those positions. Ms. Killebrew told Respondent on several occasions that she was convinced that if a woman were to get the job, it would be her. Knowing that Respondent was also ambitious of improving his position, Ms. Killebrew assured him that if she got the area superintendent job, she would recommend him for the position as principal of Boone. At some point in April 1997, Ms. Killebrew learned she would not get the area superintendent job. Shortly thereafter, she learned that she was being reassigned from Boone to Crystal Lake Middle School. Respondent testified that on the afternoon of her reassignment, Ms. Killebrew came into his office. She had tears in her eyes and clearly had been weeping. She told Respondent that she was going home, leaving him and Nancy Woods, the other assistant principal at Boone, in charge of the school for the remainder of the afternoon. The following morning, Ms. Killebrew again came to Respondent’s office. Respondent testified that she began telling him about the reassignment and broke down crying. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew was upset partially because she believed that Crystal Lake was the worst school in the district, with students from the worst families in the county, "white trash" and "rednecks." She asked Respondent to transfer with her to continue as her Assistant Principal of Discipline. After thinking about it for a day, Respondent declined Ms. Killebrew’s request to join her at Crystal Lake. He told her that he was in the pool for appointment to a principal’s position, and as one of only two African-American males in the pool, he believed his chances were good. Respondent also had been advised that his chances of getting a principal’s job would be enhanced if he obtained administrative experience outside his current area of discipline. Thus, he told Ms. Killebrew that if he were to spend another year as an assistant principal, he would attempt to become Assistant Principal for Curriculum at Boone. Frances Lee, a teacher at Boone for 32 years, testified that Respondent was a very fair, congenial person. She stated that he was also a very religious person and that she often talked about the Bible with him. Bill Podoski, the guidance counselor at Boone, testified that in his experience, Respondent had always behaved professionally. Raymond Dean Hunt, a teacher at Boone during the relevant time period, testified that he was always impressed with the professional conduct of Respondent. He stated that they had disagreements over the years, and "I’m not one to back down or be quiet . . . but I’ve been impressed with Mr. Mickens, the way he handled me, if you will, on these occasions." He testified that on these occasions, Respondent’s manner was assertive but professional. Rae Fields, a parent and daily volunteer at Boone during the relevant period, testified that Respondent was a very even-tempered person. She had never heard him raise his voice, and noted that he had to use a megaphone in the hallways to make himself heard. She testified that the students respected Respondent and that he could break up school yard fights by simply ordering the combatants to stop. She testified that children would come to him with their problems and that often in the morning there would be a line of students waiting outside his door to talk with him. She told her son that if he was ever in trouble, he should go straight to Respondent. Ms. Fields testified that the idea of Respondent yelling or even raising his voice at anyone would be "totally out of character." She added that she had seen parents "all over his desk, yelling in his face, carrying on," while Respondent sat quietly and listened. Irene Roberts, the PTA President at Boone and a daily volunteer at the school, testified that Respondent was always a gentleman, very polite, and very fair. She took her own child to Respondent, "which I would never have done if I had not felt that Mr. Mickens was fair in his dealings with all children, and that he would help my son and deal with him fairly." Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent treated all children alike and with respect. He never screamed or yelled at the students and was never threatening or rude. Ms. Roberts testified that Respondent was equally adept at dealing with parents: I was amazed, very often, to see this man never lose control. I saw parents come in who were so rude and cruel when they thought the punishment that was meted out to their child wasn’t fair, and I heard him called names and everything, and he never ever lost his temper. He always was polite to them and a gentleman. Ms. Fields and Ms. Roberts were less complimentary toward Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that she got to know Ms. Killebrew fairly well as a volunteer at Boone, where she worked for several hours every school day. Ms. Fields characterized Ms. Killebrew as a "bully" who "liked to intimidate the parents. She liked to intimidate the students." More diplomatically, Ms. Roberts described Ms. Killebrew as "feisty." "It was her way or no way. She just didn’t . . . give very easily." When asked if Ms. Killebrew was open-minded, Ms. Roberts replied, "That all depended on what she wanted or what the occasion was." During Ms. Killebrew’s tenure at Boone, there was a certain amount of racial tension at the school. Much of the tension focused on the School Resource Officer ("SRO"), Ed Nixon. The SRO is a local police officer or sheriff’s deputy assigned to each middle school and high school in Polk County. Ms. Roberts, who is white, testified about Officer Nixon as follows: There’s no nice way to say this. I think he was a little bit biased, bigoted. He kind of was very heavy handed with Hispanic kids and sometimes the black children. He just . . . seemed to be a little heavier and hotter on them . . . He was kind of, he was rough with kids and he was especially rough with the Hispanics. Ms. Fields, who is African-American, agreed with Ms. Roberts’ assessment. She testified that Officer Nixon was different with different children, and not friendly with minority children. She testified that "If you were doing something, and you were black or Hispanic, you more than likely got drug [sic] into his office or into the main office for some type of action to be taken." She testified that Officer Nixon was more likely to let white children walk away with a scolding, unless the offense was too severe to overlook. Ms. Fields testified that she was also disturbed that Officer Nixon was actively involved in disciplining children for typical school yard infractions, when she understood the SRO’s job to be deterring illegal activity. Ms. Fields testified that she thought the school, not the SRO, was responsible for primary discipline of children, and she brought her concerns to the attention of Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Fields testified that Ms. Killebrew at first tried to mollify her with a recitation of Officer Nixon’s personal and professional virtues. When Ms. Fields persisted, Ms. Killebrew told Ms. Fields that she could take her child out of the school if she was unhappy with Officer Nixon. Ms. Fields testified that this was a typical reaction by Ms. Killebrew to parents’ expressions of concern. Ms. Killebrew testified that she could not recall whether Officer Nixon was contributing to problems on the Boone campus and that nothing to that effect had ever been reported to her. This testimony is not credible. Both Ms. Roberts and Ms. Fields testified that Officer Nixon tended to harass verbally certain students. Ms. Fields noted this to be especially the case with certain Hispanic children whom Officer Nixon characterized as "known gang members." Ms. Fields testified that the cause of much of the aforementioned parental "yelling and screaming" was Officer Nixon. Parents would come in to complain about Officer Nixon’s treatment of their children, and Mr. Mickens would have to deal with the problem. Respondent testified as to Officer Nixon’s treatment of one particular Hispanic student, J.G. Respondent stated that J.G. had a discipline record that included some time in an alternative school, and that Officer Nixon claimed to have information that J.G. was a "bona fide gang member." Respondent testified that Officer Nixon monitored J.G.’s activity constantly, and that he was always confrontational in his dealings with J.G. Respondent added: And I have to say, I got numerous complaints from Hispanic kids, from black kids . . . it was on a regular basis about how he handled them . . . . [J.G.] had complained to me himself about, you know, Officer Nixon, the way he said things, accusations and things, you know. If there may be some writing on the bathroom wall, or there may be a gang sign on a table, he was always . . . one of the individuals that Officer Nixon would automatically allege or assume had performed the misconduct, you know, without really any evidence. [J.G.] always complained that . . . Officer Nixon always came up and would be questioning him and breaking up their groups, you know, this type thing . . . "He’s not making these other people spread out. Why are we supposed to be gang members, and none of the other people are being accused . . ." And there was always comments about some of the kids’ parents being drug dealers or being, you know, gang members. The morning of Friday, April 25, 1997, was somber on the Boone campus. Ms. Rubio, an aide for special education students at Boone, had died suddenly. Ms. Rubio very well-liked by students and teachers and everyone on the campus was saddened at her death. April 25, 1997, was the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled for 11 a.m. at a local church. Respondent came to the campus early that morning. Ms. Killebrew was not on the campus that day. She testified that she was absent because she was at another middle school participating in preparations for a presentation to the School Board. However, she later testified that she remembered attending Ms. Rubio’s funeral. It is undisputed that Ms. Killebrew was not on the Boone campus that morning. Because of Ms. Killebrew’s absence, the two assistant principals met and decided that only one of them should attend the funeral. They decided that Respondent would go to the funeral and that Ms. Woods would stay in charge of the campus. In chatting with Officer Nixon, Respondent mentioned that he was going to the funeral. At that, Officer Nixon "just started crying. He told me that Ms. Killebrew told him that he could not go. He said that he had wanted to lead the procession, you know. He asked me to give his condolences, you know, to the family. And he . . . was just crying about it." Respondent went to the funeral, and returned to the Boone campus around noon. He headed for the patio outside the cafeteria to prepare for monitoring the eighth grade lunch hour. As usual, he carried his megaphone and a portable radio with which he communicated with Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that, as he entered the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria, he saw a student who, upon seeing Respondent, turned on his heels and headed in the other direction toward his class. At about the same time, Officer Nixon radioed Respondent. Respondent testified that he thought Officer Nixon’s message related to the student whom Respondent had just seen heading toward class. Respondent replied to Officer Nixon that all was well, the problem was taken care of. Respondent testified that he later found out that he had misunderstood Officer Nixon’s message. "I learned later on that he had called me to come over to the cafeteria, and I didn’t come. But I did not understand that that was the communication." Respondent testified that he was standing on the patio monitoring the eighth graders going into the cafeteria when Officer Nixon approached him from behind. Officer Nixon asked Respondent if he had disciplined J.G. for running in the bus zone a few days earlier. Respondent answered that he had forgotten. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon then said, "I’m going to handcuff him, slam dunk him, and haul him downtown." Respondent testified that this statement "got my attention," and that he told Officer Nixon to write up a referral on J.G. if he did something wrong. Respondent testified that Officer Nixon was upset, and continued to mutter, to no one in particular, "I’m going to haul him downtown. I’m going to haul his butt off campus." Respondent testified that, up to this point, he had an amicable working relationship with Officer Nixon. They had always been able to talk about Respondent’s concerns with Officer Nixon’s performance. "I treated him with the utmost courtesy, and vice versa. He listened to me. Several things he was doing that I had concerns about, he did proper research and he changed from doing. And we were making progress." Respondent testified that his goal was always to avoid "getting physical" with the children. Two years earlier, Respondent had seen a child handcuffed, thrown to the ground and manhandled, and had vowed that he was going to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again. Thus, when he heard Officer Nixon talking about "slam dunking" J.G., Respondent said, "I don’t want you picking on the kid." With that, Officer Nixon stepped away from Respondent, pointed his finger, and said, "You’re not my boss. You can’t tell me what to do." Respondent testified that he did not respond because there were still children in the area filing into the cafeteria. Officer Nixon then walked away toward the main office. Respondent waited for the children to finish filing into the cafeteria, which he estimated took a couple of minutes. He then asked another teacher to take over his monitoring duties and went to the office. Upon reaching the office, Respondent told Officer Nixon that they needed to speak. Officer Nixon shrugged dismissively and walked away from Respondent. Respondent again stated that he needed to speak to Officer Nixon and that if Officer Nixon would not speak to him, then Officer Nixon should leave the campus. Respondent testified that they were standing at the door of the office and that there were no threats of violence or belligerence of any kind. Only three other people were in the office area at this time: Bill Podoski and Raymond Dean Hunt, teachers who were in Mr. Hunt’s adjacent guidance office when Respondent and Officer Nixon entered; and the guidance secretary. Mr. Podoski heard the altercation from Mr. Hunt’s office and testified that he did not hear Respondent raise his voice. Mr. Hunt came out of his office and saw the two men. He testified that Officer Nixon was speaking loudly and belligerently, saying something to the effect that Respondent was not his boss and could not tell him what to do. Mr. Hunt stated that Respondent was speaking assertively but not as loudly as Officer Nixon. He testified that Respondent’s tone of voice was no louder than he had heard it in previous disagreements Mr. Hunt had had with Respondent, "assertive but professional." Respondent and Officer Nixon proceeded out the office door to a walkway outside the building. Respondent again told Officer Nixon that he should leave the campus. Officer Nixon responded that he was not going to argue with Respondent in front of students, then walked away. Respondent testified that there were a few students sitting on a bench along the walkway. He testified that he did not believe the bulk of the students sitting on the patio could hear his conversation with Officer Nixon due to the distance and to the fact that the patio was noisy with typical lunchtime activity. Respondent testified that at this point he was content to let Officer Nixon walk away, as he had duties to resume. He did not see Officer Nixon again that day. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods, the other assistant principal, came into his office some time later that afternoon. Ms. Woods told Respondent that she had spoken with Officer Nixon, who told her he was scared that Respondent was calling his boss about the incident. Ms. Woods executed a sworn statement on Monday, April 28, 1997. Her statement reads, in relevant part: I was at eighth grade lunch and Officer Nixon came over to where I was. He was very upset. He said that Mr. Mickens had yelled at him in front of students and told him to get off campus. I tried to calm him down. He went on out the back door of the cafeteria. I walked over to the door with him, still trying to calm him down. He said it wasn’t right for Mr. Mickens to do that in front of students. I went back inside and Officer Nixon went on down the sidewalk. * * * After lunch duty was over, Mr. Brickel and I were walking back to the office and Officer Nixon was standing out there by the wall. He was crying (not boo-hooing, but tears in his eyes). He was saying that Mr. Mickens was calling his chief. He said that several times. We tried to calm him down, and Mr. Brickel told him to get in his car and go off and have a cigarette to help him calm down. James Brickel, the teacher referenced in Ms. Woods’ statement, also provided a written statement that confirmed the essentials of Ms. Woods’ account, as well as Respondent’s testimony regarding the miscommunication over the radio between Respondent and Officer Nixon. Respondent testified that after the incident, he called the office of Carolyn Baldwin, the assistant superintendent, to let her know what he said to Officer Nixon. Respondent also called Angus Williams, the Director of Discipline for the school district, who served as the school system’s liaison to the SROs. Respondent attempted to call Lt. Raggs, who was the charge officer for SROs, or anyone else in authority at the Haines City Police Department, but could not reach anyone there. He instructed his secretary to call them continuously, but was never able to speak to them. Respondent testified that Ms. Woods told him that she would call Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods called her. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was upset and told her there had been a loud argument between Mr. Mickens and the SRO. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods was concerned because students had heard the argument and were already talking about it. Ms. Killebrew stated that Ms. Woods asked her to come back to Boone quickly. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Woods also told her that Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department wanted Ms. Killebrew to call him. This fact indicates that the Haines City Police Department was aware of the situation and acting upon it, despite Respondent’s futile attempts to contact the police directly. Ms. Killebrew testified that she called Chief Wheeler from her car, and he was "very angry and upset." It was agreed that Ms. Killebrew would meet him at the police station. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was so angry and upset that she called Mr. Williams, the SRO liaison, to go with her to the police station to help guide her through the meeting. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams first went to Boone, where they heard Respondent’s account of the incident. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent was "very calm" as he described what happened. She stated that the one point of contention was Respondent’s statement that he asked Officer Nixon to leave the campus. Mr. Williams informed Respondent that the SROs were not employed by the school district and that school administrators lacked the authority to order them off campus. Ms. Killebrew testified that Respondent believed he should have such authority but that he expressed his disagreement in a calm manner. Respondent generally agreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the meeting. His recollection was that it was Ms. Killebrew, not Mr. Williams, who told him he lacked the authority to order Officer Nixon off campus. Respondent also recalled that Mr. Williams cut off the conversation during this disagreement and stated that "we’re going to let administration take care of" investigating the matter. Mr. Williams instructed Respondent to report to the school board offices on the morning of Monday, April 28, 1997. Ms. Killebrew and Mr. Williams then drove to the police station. She testified that Officer Nixon was there when she arrived at the police station. Chief Wheeler and Lt. Raggs told her that Officer Nixon was in an office writing up his statement of what happened. Officer Nixon’s unsworn statement reads as follows, in full: On Friday, April 25, 1997 I, Officer Nixon, was on duty at Boone Middle School (225 South 22nd Street) when I advised the Assistant Principal Ron Mikens [sic] that I was having a problem with a student, [J.G.], in the cafeteria. Mr. Mikens then refused to come to the cafeteria. 8th grade lunch then started and I went outside to speak to Mr. Mikens about the problem. I told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.] was accused of picking on [B.D.] and I asked him if he had done anything about an incident that occured [sic] earlier in the week when [J.G.] refused to leave the bus zone and Mr. Mikens told me he had not done anything. I then told Mr. Mikens that [J.G.]’s behavior was getting worse and I felt that a student may get injured if some action was not taken. Mr. Mikens then got agitated and raised his voice at me and told me that I was picking on the kids. Mr. Mikens then pointed his finger at me and said, "let me tell you something Officer Nixon." I then told Mr. Mikens that I do not work for him and walked away. I then went into the main office and walked down the hall when Mr. Mikens began yelling at me again and pointing his finger in my face. I told him again that I did not work for him and at that point he told me to leave the campus. I told him I would not leave the campus and I walked out the door to Student Services and he followed me out the door. Mr. Mikens then began yelling at me in the hallway adjacent to the 8th grade patio and he put his finger in my face and told me that I did work for him and I will leave the school. Mr. Mikens created a disturbance in front of several 8th grade students and Mr. Mikens also stated that he wished I did put my hands on him. I walked away from him again and told Assistant Principal Becky Woods of the situation. I then left the school to prevent any further incident. Officer Nixon did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Killebrew testified that Chief Wheeler was threatening to arrest Respondent. Mr. Williams interjected that he would go to the school and that he would handle the situation. On Monday, Respondent reported as instructed and was interviewed by Dale McDonald, the school district’s Personnel Investigator Specialist, along with William Londeree, the Director of Employee Relations and Noninstructional Personnel. Respondent testified that he wrote a statement at their request. Respondent then was sent home for the rest of the day. Besides meeting with Respondent, Mr. McDonald talked to roughly ten students and had each of them make a written statement. He testified that Respondent gave him the names of three or four students who might have observed the incident. Mr. McDonald did not indicate the source of the other names. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she was in the office on the day the interviews were conducted. Mr. McDonald was calling students down to the office, and Ms. Roberts noted four or five students who were discussing what they were going to say when Mr. McDonald called them in. She also noted that four of these students were members of the "Explorers," a Boy Scout type organization focusing on police work. Officer Nixon ran the Explorers chapter at Boone. Ms. Roberts testified that she interrupted the students’ conversation and told them to cease discussing the matter. She ordered them to sit quietly, wait to be called in, and tell the truth to the investigator. In a subsequent written statement, Mr. McDonald reported that he asked each student interviewed if he or she was a member of the Explorers, and that they all told him they were not. Ms. Roberts, who was at Boone every day during that school year and logged more than 1,000 volunteer hours, was in a position to know that the students in question were members of the Explorers, regardless of what these students told Mr. McDonald, an outsider to the Boone campus. Mr. McDonald also took statements from four staff persons, including the statements of Ms. Woods and Mr. Brickel referenced above. Mr. McDonald did not take the statement of Mr. Hunt because "Mr. Hunt was apparently a witness to only the tail end of the conversation." Mr. McDonald’s reasoning is curious in light of the fact that several of the statements he deemed worth taking were from students who saw only the episode on the walkway, and who could hear nothing of what the two men were saying. The walkway episode occurred later than the scene witnessed by Mr. Hunt. Leaving aside questions of bias on the part of the student witnesses, their hearsay statements are unreliable on their face as the basis for findings of fact. The students claim to have heard statements and seen actions that neither participant made or took. One student claimed to have seen Respondent raise his fist as if to hit Officer Nixon. Given the self-serving tenor of Officer Nixon’s written statement, it is difficult to believe he would have refrained from mentioning such an action if it occurred. The students also placed statements in the wrong person’s mouth. Even Officer Nixon agreed that it was he who substantially stated, "You’re not my boss." Yet one of the students claims Respondent made that statement. Mr. McDonald took the statement of one student who saw nothing of the incident, but whose friends told her that Respondent and Officer Nixon were "mad at each other." Another student heard someone say, "Don’t put your hand on me," but did not know who said it. Mr. McDonald also apparently found some value in the following student statement, which reads in full: Last Friday I had just come out of the lunchroom and I went to go sit with my friends and [S.W.] was sitting down by me and I was starting to talk to him and he told me to be quiet he wanted to hear what Mr. Mickens, Officer Nixon, and Mr. Brickel was saying, so I turned around to see what they were doing and that is all I saw. I could not understand what they were saying. Mr. Mickens was talking, but he usually talks loud. None of the students testified at the hearing, further eroding the probative value of their cursory written statements. The students’ statements are useful as an impressionistic indication that the conversation was somewhat more heated than Respondent recalled. All of the students agreed that both men appeared angry. The statements are also useful to indicate that Officer Nixon was not merely the passive recipient of abuse as he claimed in his self-serving written statement. Finally, the student statements are of some value in corroborating Respondent’s testimony that the conversation was not conducted in loud tones. Some of the students frankly admitted they could not hear what the two men were saying. Others claim to have heard statements that appear to be their surmises of what the men must have been saying, given that they "looked mad." In summary, Respondent’s version of events is the only one made under oath and subject to cross-examination, and was corroborated in part by Mr. Hunt. Petitioner offered no testimony from any eyewitness to the event. Officer Nixon’s unsworn hearsay statement is patently self-serving, portraying him as the victim of an unprovoked tirade by Respondent. The student statements are unreliable, except as indicated above. Respondent’s version is consistent with the descriptions of his character and demeanor and of Officer Nixon’s character and demeanor offered at the hearing. It is found that Respondent’s version of the incident with Officer Nixon is essentially accurate, though it likely understates somewhat the heat of the conversation between the two men. It is found that the confrontation was entirely verbal, and that neither man ever threatened to escalate the matter to physical violence. Both men were in a labile emotional state due to the funeral of Ms. Rubio, which contributed to turning a minor misunderstanding into a confrontation. Respondent calmed down quickly, but Officer Nixon remained upset and fearful that Respondent would report his actions to his superiors. This caused Officer Nixon to preemptively go to his superiors with his one-sided version of events, which outraged Chief Wheeler and led him to demand retribution against Respondent. Returning to the chronology of events, Respondent was sent home on Monday, April 28, 1997, after his meeting with Messrs. Londeree and McDonald. On Wednesday, April 30, Respondent received a phone call from Ms. Baldwin’s secretary, telling him to come to a meeting at which Ms. Baldwin "was going to work this thing out." He was told nothing further about the substance of this meeting or even who would be present. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was attended by herself, Respondent, Officer Nixon, Ms. Killebrew, Chief Wheeler, Angus Williams, and Tillman Sanders, who worked in the Superintendent’s office. Ms. Killebrew recalled that two or three police lieutenants were present along with Chief Wheeler. Respondent also recalled that at least one other police officer besides Officer Nixon and Chief Wheeler was present. All agreed that Ms. Baldwin chaired the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that the meeting was called at the request of Chief Wheeler because he was "very upset about what he perceived to be unprofessional treatment of a police officer on our school campus." Ms. Baldwin testified that her agenda for the meeting was to assure Chief Wheeler that the incident would not be repeated and to allow Chief Wheeler to speak directly to Respondent. She did not testify as to any effort made by her or her staff to inform Respondent of the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Baldwin testified that Respondent spoke at length, giving his version of events. She opined that he seemed "pretty defensive," and became upset with Officer Nixon’s version of events. Ms. Killebrew testified that she was instructed by Ms. Baldwin during the meeting to write a letter of reprimand to be placed in Respondent’s file. She stated that Respondent was upset by this instruction and continued to argue that such a letter was not in order. Ms. Baldwin also testified that she "recommended" to Ms. Killebrew that a letter of reprimand be written for unprofessional behavior in front of staff and students. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin gave her detailed instructions as to the form and content of the letter. Respondent testified that he was puzzled throughout the meeting. He testified that Ms. Baldwin lectured him that he was not under any circumstances to order a police officer off the campus. He testified that Chief Wheeler was extremely angry at the statement he had written, which contradicted that of Officer Nixon. At some point, it became clear to Respondent that the purpose of the meeting was to give him a letter of reprimand, not to air the facts of the situation. He testified that he had never heard of any school employee receiving such a public reprimand. Respondent testified that Ms. Baldwin stated that she had not read Mr. McDonald’s report and was not interested in reading it. This was essentially confirmed by Ms. Baldwin, who testified that her basic understanding of the facts came by way of conversations with Ms. Killebrew. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was not her role to investigate the facts. As found above, Ms. Killebrew was not a witness to any of the events on the Boone campus. Thus, Ms. Baldwin’s version of the facts was a third hand retelling of Officer Nixon’s story and need not be repeated here. Ms. Baldwin testified that Ms. Killebrew assured her that "numerous" staff members at Boone confirmed her version of the story, essentially an adoption of Officer Nixon’s statement. Neither Ms. Baldwin nor Ms. Killebrew provided the names of these "numerous" staff members. Ms. Baldwin admitted she performed no independent investigation of the facts or of the credibility and emotional state of Officer Nixon. She was not made aware of teachers from Boone who disagreed with Ms. Killebrew’s version of the facts. Based upon all the testimony, it is found that the principal purpose of this meeting was to publicly reprimand Respondent in an effort to mollify Chief Wheeler of the Haines City Police Department. The testimony indicates that every school board employee at the meeting, except Respondent and Angus Williams, was aware beforehand that he or she was present for a public chastisement of Respondent, not for a fair hearing. Both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew insisted that the reprimand had nothing to do with whether Respondent was right or wrong in the argument, but was based on his behavior in front of students and staff. Their testimony was that they were not required to choose between the stories of Respondent and Officer Nixon in order to reprimand Respondent. This testimony is belied by the actual text of the letter of reprimand, dated April 30, 1997, which states in relevant part: I regret that I must reprimand you for unprofessional behavior in the performance of your duties as Assistant Principal at Boone Middle School. This comes as a result of the incident that took place with School Resource Officer Ed Nixon on Friday, April 25, 1997. I am also requiring that you get counseling through the Employee Assistance Program in the hope that it may help you understand the situation better. Despite its use of the first person singular, the letter was signed by both Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew. The first paragraph of the letter is consistent with the testimony that Respondent was reprimanded for having an argument with Officer Nixon in front of students and staff, regardless of the motivation or whose version of the story Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew believed. However, in the second paragraph of their letter, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Killebrew order Respondent to enter counseling. This order indicates that Respondent’s version of events was disregarded and that Officer Nixon’s was entirely accepted. If Respondent was confronting Officer Nixon to protect a student from harassment and possibly from physical abuse, counseling would hardly be necessary to help him "understand the situation." Counseling might be called for if Respondent had gone into an unprovoked rage in response to an innocuous question by Officer Nixon. The finding that Respondent’s story was disregarded is supported by the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Nixon, the other participant in the incident. Respondent was required to stay home for at least three school days while his supervisors contemplated a course of action. Officer Nixon returned to Boone on the Monday following the incident. It is understood that the school district apparently lacked authority to take direct disciplinary action against Officer Nixon. However, nothing in the record of this case indicates that anyone from the school district even suggested disciplinary action to Officer Nixon’s superiors, despite his participation in the incident and despite repeated complaints from parents about Officer Nixon’s methods and actions on the Boone campus generally. This supports the finding that Respondent’s superiors accepted wholesale the facts as stated by Officer Nixon. Ms. Baldwin testified that the words "I am requiring that you get counseling" did not mean that she was requiring Respondent to get counseling. She stated that the words actually meant that she was "requesting" Respondent to obtain an "evaluation" because of "some behaviors . . . which appeared to be unusual to the supervisory people." She admitted that the "supervisory people" she referenced included no one other than Ms. Killebrew, who testified that the counseling requirement was placed in the letter on Ms. Baldwin’s instructions. Ms. Baldwin’s testimony cannot be credited as anything other than an effort to finesse the fact that she ordered Respondent to enter counseling when she lacked the authority to do so. Petitioner offered no evidence that Ms. Baldwin, as East Area Superintendent, was authorized to require Respondent to obtain counseling through the Employee Assistance Program. Ms. Baldwin testified that it was her understanding that her "recommendations" in this regard must be affirmed by the Superintendent and that she could take no disciplinary action against Respondent for refusing to enter counseling. When asked point blank if she believed she had the authority to require Respondent to submit to the Employee Assistance Program, she answered, "I had the authority to say that I thought that was an appropriate recommendation." Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Services, testified that area superintendents such as Ms. Baldwin only have authority to recommend participation in the Employee Assistance Program. He stated that it would be gross misconduct for an area superintendent to require an employee to do something she lacks authority to require. When confronted with the actual letter of reprimand, Mr. Dunn decided that he might be wrong about the area superintendent’s authority in these matters. Ms. Killebrew testified that when she gave Respondent the letter of reprimand, she advised him to drop the matter and "let it go," that with good performance the reprimand letter would "go away." She testified that she told Respondent not to discuss the incident at school because she did not want staff and students gossiping and taking sides in the matter. Respondent testified that Ms. Killebrew never instructed him not to discuss the matter with his co-workers or students. Under cross-examination, Ms. Killebrew conceded that she never "ordered" Respondent not to discuss the matter, and that there was no written directive from her on the subject. She stated that, "I asked him not to, in a professional manner." In early May 1997, Respondent returned to his duties at Boone. On May 8, 1997, two incidents occurred involving Respondent. The first involved a conflict over whether Respondent or Officer Nixon should respond to altercations in classrooms. Ms. Killebrew’s version of events, as she stated was relayed to her by her secretary, is that the secretary placed a call sending Officer Nixon to remove disruptive students from a class pursuant to Ms. Killebrew’s general instruction to always send Officer Nixon on such calls. Shortly thereafter, Respondent approached the secretary and told her that from this point forward she was to send Respondent, not Officer Nixon, to address classroom disturbances. Ms. Killebrew’s secretary did not testify at the final hearing. It is also noted that Ms. Killebrew’s written statement describing these events appears not to have been typed by her secretary. The other letters in the record signed by Ms. Killebrew were typed by her secretary. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, told a different version of this event. She was in the office when the call came in. She testified that Officer Nixon had just come in the front door when Respondent exited to go to the classroom. She stated that Officer Nixon ran out and said, "I’ll take it, I’ll take it," but that Respondent was already gone. She testified that Officer Nixon returned to the office angry, and said, "That’s it, I’m calling Carolyn Baldwin. He’s fighting me every inch of the way." Ms. Roberts testified that she was puzzled as to what Officer Nixon was talking about, because in her view Respondent was just doing his job. The second incident was caused by the first. Ms. Killebrew testified that she went into Respondent’s office to discuss the ongoing friction between Respondent and Officer Nixon, and particularly the incident between Respondent and her secretary. Ms. Killebrew testified that she also wished to discuss an incident relayed to her by "a teacher," in which Respondent allegedly pulled a child out of class to ask him about the incident with Officer Nixon. Again, Ms. Killebrew did not identify this teacher, and Petitioner offered no corroboration for her hearsay testimony. Thus, this portion of Ms. Killebrew’s testimony cannot be credited. Ms. Killebrew’s written statement of the incident, which she verified as accurate at the final hearing, states in relevant part: I told him that the conflict with Officer Nixon has to stop and that we all have to work together until school is out. I also told him that the staff was becoming divided because he was continuing to discuss it. He responded that he was going to the school board because everybody had lied about him. I told him that was fine, but it needed to be kept away from the school. I reminded him that I had asked him not to discuss the incident when I gave him the letter. He said, "That’s a lie. You never told me that." I asked, "You’re calling me a liar?" He responded, "Yes, I am. After all I’ve did for you, you sat up in that meeting and told those lies . . ." At this point, I stopped him and told him that he needed to take the afternoon off. He continued to go on. Several more times I had to try to stop him and repeat myself. Finally, he acknowledged that he had heard me. Respondent’s version of the incident basically coincides with Ms. Killebrew’s, with some differences in the particulars. When she asked if he was calling her a liar, Respondent testified that his answer was, "Ms. Killebrew, if you said you told me that, yes, you are lying." Respondent testified that he did not say that Ms. Killebrew lied at the earlier meeting with the police officers, but he did reproach her for not supporting him at the meeting. Respondent’s testimony is consistent with Ms. Killebrew’s own testimony that she sat silently at that meeting. Respondent testified that, although he was surprised at Ms. Killebrew’s statements, he responded calmly. On the advice of Dr. Neriah Roberts, Executive Director of the Association of School Based Administrators, Respondent requested that Ms. Killebrew put in writing her order that he go home for the remainder of the day. After obtaining direction from William Londeree, the district’s Director of Employee Relations and Non-Instructional Personnel, Ms. Killebrew put her order in writing and Respondent went home. On the afternoon of May 8, 1997, Ms. Killebrew wrote the statement quoted above, in the form of a letter to Superintendent Glenn Reynolds. The letter concludes as follows: Due to Mr. Mickens’ insubordinate, disrespectful behavior to me, I am asking that you suspend him, without pay, from his duties as assistant principal at Boone Middle School. I am also asking that you consider reassigning him to another location. Not only has he compromised his working relationship with me, he has also put his effectiveness here at the school in jeopardy by failing to behave in a professional manner. Ms. Killebrew testified that she wrote this letter according to instructions given her by Ms. Baldwin, as she had the earlier reprimand letter. She testified that Ms. Baldwin instructed her as to the form and content of the letter, including the suspension recommendation. Ms. Killebrew testified that Ms. Baldwin told her that the School Board has progressive discipline. Ms. Baldwin told Ms. Killebrew that "He had been given a letter of reprimand. This would be step two, therefore I should ask for a suspension." As will be discussed more fully in the conclusions of law below, Ms. Baldwin was correct in stating that the Polk County School Board has progressive discipline. However, "step two" in the progression set forth in Section 3.005(II)(A) of the School Board policies is a "written reprimand," not a suspension. "Suspension or demotion" is step three in the progression. In their eagerness to pacify Chief Wheeler, the district administrators passed over step one in the School Board’s progressive discipline scheme, "verbal reprimand." It is found that Respondent was truthful in testifying that he did not understand Ms. Killebrew to have directed him to refrain from discussing these matters at school. Ms. Killebrew herself softened her recollection to testify that she had "asked" Respondent not to discuss the incident. However, it is also found that such an instruction should not have been necessary. Whether or not Ms. Killebrew said anything at all to Respondent, he should have understood that no good to the school could come from hallway discussions of the incident with Officer Nixon. Respondent did not deny talking about the incident upon his return to Boone. Ms. Killebrew’s testimony that she was hearing from staff that Respondent was discussing the matter is credited. Thus, Ms. Killebrew was justified in confronting Respondent about the matter. Whatever his feelings, Respondent was impolitic at best in accusing Ms. Killebrew of lying. Her immediate reaction in sending Respondent home for the rest of the afternoon was also justified. Tempers could cool and the matter could be addressed rationally at a later time. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that Ms. Killebrew appears to have been pursuing a personal agenda against Respondent. Ms. Roberts, the PTA President, testified that she spoke with Respondent on the day he returned to the Boone campus in early May and offered to be a character witness for him. Shortly thereafter, she was approached by Ms. Killebrew: Eileen Killebrew came up to me and advised me not to talk to him and not to ask him questions about it or to be friendly, and she made the statement, I want him off my campus, or something to that effect . . . I said, Mr. Mickens, he’s so nice, he’s a nice man. And she said, oh, you don’t know, you don’t know. I want him out of here. The vehemence of Ms. Killebrew’s statements to Ms. Roberts cannot be explained by Respondent’s set-to with Officer Nixon, or by her vague comments that she had noted some slippage in Respondent’s performance during the 1996-1997 school year, even if those comments could be credited as more than after-the-fact rationalizations for her actions. Respondent noted that Ms. Killebrew’s change in attitude toward him coincided with his rejection of her request that he join her in transferring to Crystal Lake Middle School. The facts also demonstrate that Ms. Killebrew was well aware that parents and Respondent were concerned about the bullying methods of Officer Nixon and that Ms. Killebrew stood squarely behind Officer Nixon. It is found that these factors best explain why Ms. Killebrew would seize upon a brief argument that occurred behind closed doors as a pretext for attempting to have Respondent suspended from his job without pay and reassigned. She did not wait for tempers to cool, did not attempt to have a rational conversation with Respondent, or otherwise seek a less drastic remedy. Ms. Killebrew wanted an excuse to get Respondent "off her campus," and this incident could do the job. The following day, May 9, 1997, Superintendent Glenn Reynolds sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was placing Respondent on paid leave, effective May 12, 1997. The letter also stated that Mr. Reynolds was "requiring you to submit to a complete medical and psychological evaluation," and provided a list of physicians and psychologists from which Respondent could choose. The letter required Respondent to choose one physician and one psychologist and to inform the Employee Relations Office of his choices no later than May 14, 1997. Unlike Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Reynolds freely admitted that the word "requiring" in his letter meant "requiring." However, as with Ms. Baldwin, Petitioner offered no evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to require Respondent to submit to a complete medical and psychological examination. Mr. Reynolds essentially contended that he had the inherent authority as Superintendent to require Respondent to submit to these examinations. The school district’s Contract of Employment for Administrators for the school year 1997-1998 contained a provision stating as follows: The Employee, at his expense, agrees to submit to the Board, if required, prior to the effective date of this contract written evidence of good health as required by Board policy. The Employee, at the expense of the Board, further agrees, upon request of the Board at any time during the school term, to submit to a physical or psychiatric examination by a qualified physician or physicians to be selected by the Employee from a list consisting of not less than three (3) names approved by the Board. The Employee further agrees to allow the report of the physicians to be submitted to the board with a copy being forwarded to the Employee. The quoted provision was not contained in the contracts for prior years, including the 1996-1997 school year that is the relevant time period for this hearing. Mr. Reynolds testified that he could not recall the particulars regarding this change to the employment contract. It is noted that even if the quoted provision had been in effect, the authority to require an employee to submit to a psychiatric examination is vested in the School Board, not the Superintendent. Respondent replied by letter dated May 12, 1997, informing Mr. Reynolds of his selection of a physician and a psychologist. Respondent’s letter also requested a conference with Ms. Killebrew and a reason in writing from Mr. Reynolds for the medical and psychological evaluation. By letter dated May 14, 1997, Mr. Reynolds responded as follows, in relevant part: I have required the evaluations to provide me with an independent, professional opinion as to whether there are stress-related or medical reasons for reported behaviors which had not been evidenced in your previous work experience. The information will help me in making decisions relating to behaviors which have been recently reported and/or investigated. Mr. Reynolds’ letter was silent as to Respondent’s request for a meeting with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds use of "recently reported and/or investigated" in the statement quoted above is technically accurate but misleading in its implication that an "investigation" may have occurred. Mr. Reynolds in fact relied on Ms. Killebrew’s version of events as conveyed to him by Ms. Baldwin, along with the uninformative statements collected by Mr. McDonald and the self-serving written statement of Officer Nixon, which Mr. Reynolds inaptly termed a "deposition." Mr. Reynolds neither conducted nor ordered an independent investigation of the events at Boone. Respondent was dissatisfied with the reasons given for subjecting him to a psychological evaluation and met with Mr. Reynolds. Respondent testified that at the meeting, Mr. Reynolds would only say that he wanted an independent opinion regarding Respondent’s mental health and told Respondent that he would likely be terminated if he didn’t do it. Respondent testified that he was a former military officer, and if his superior ordered him to see a psychologist, he would see a psychologist. At the hearing, Mr. Reynolds was unable to recall lucidly the chronology of events. He justified ordering the psychological exam by reference to "threats" Respondent had made. Further inquiry revealed that the referenced "threats" related to events that allegedly occurred three months after Mr. Reynolds ordered the examination. Mr. Reynolds also suggested that he was acting to help Respondent and perhaps prevent a situation such as later occurred at Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. This suggestion was irrational, given that Respondent had been accused only of having a shouting match with a School Resource Officer and an argument with Ms. Killebrew. Mr. Reynolds frankly admitted he was relying on the word of Ms. Killebrew regarding the events at Boone and Respondent’s mental state. It is not surprising that someone relying entirely on Ms. Killbrew’s version of events would come away believing that Respondent was emotionally unstable, and come away knowing none of the details regarding Officer Nixon’s pattern of behavior at the school or Ms. Killebrew’s resentment of Respondent. Mr. Reynolds justified his reliance on Ms. Killebrew’s word by saying, "We have to assume that our administrators are going to be honest, be straightforward." He failed to explain why Respondent, also an administrator, did not enjoy the benefit of the same assumption. It is found that Mr. Reynolds lacked a sufficient factual basis for taking the serious, potentially stigmatizing step of ordering Respondent to submit to a psychological examination, even if it is assumed that Mr. Reynolds had the authority to do so. The only facts before Mr. Reynolds were that Respondent had arguments with Ms. Killebrew and Officer Nixon, plus Ms. Killebrew’s vague impressions that Respondent appeared to be under stress. Mr. Reynolds made no independent investigation of the situation. He expressed no curiosity as to whether there were personal grudges or emotional issues on the part of Officer Nixon and Ms. Killebrew, even after a group of parents and teachers including Ms. Fields, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Hunt met with him to state their support of Respondent and their concerns about Officer Nixon’s behavior on the Boone campus. Respondent submitted to the psychological exam on June 11, 1997. Respondent testified that the psychologist presented him with release forms and asked Respondent to sign them. Respondent refused his consent to allow any examination report to be turned over to the school district. Discussions ensued between Respondent and Messrs. Dunn and Londeree of the school district over the release of the examination report. Respondent testified that the psychologist refused to go over the results of the examination with him unless he would sign the release forms. Respondent testified that Mr. Dunn later phoned him to say that he had spoken with the psychologist and arranged for Respondent to go back in and sit down with the psychologist to go over the report. Respondent returned to the psychologist, who told him that he had not written a "report" and did not intend to do so. Respondent testified that the psychologist said to him, "Your problem is not with me, it’s with the Superintendent of Schools." Respondent testified that he next received a call from Mr. Londeree, who wanted to make a deal. Mr. Londeree asked Respondent to permit the psychologist to send a copy of the report to the school district at the same time a copy was sent to Respondent. Respondent testified that his answer was, "I don’t make deals." Respondent testified that Mr. Londeree told him that if the school district did not receive a copy of the psychologist’s report, then it would go to "Plan B." Respondent stated that he and Dr. Roberts puzzled over what "Plan B" might be. Respondent testified that, in retrospect, he assumed "Plan B" was to transfer him to McLaughlin Middle School, because the transfer occurred immediately after he confirmed his refusal to release his records. By letter dated July 23, 1997, Mr. Reynolds informed Respondent that he was reassigned to the assistant principal position at McLaughlin Middle School, effective immediately. Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent’s refusal to release the exam results played no part in his decision to transfer Respondent, though he offered no alternative explanation for the timing of his decision. The same alleged facts were before Mr. Reynolds on May 9, 1997, when he suspended Respondent with pay, yet more than two months lapsed before this reassignment, just after Respondent’s refusal to release the records of a psychological examination he should not have been required to take. Ronald Rizer, the principal of McLaughlin Middle School, testified that he could not remember the date he was told that Respondent would begin work at his school. He remembered that Ms. Baldwin called him and asked if he would be willing to swap his current assistant principal for Respondent. Mr. Rizer testified that he told Ms. Baldwin he would work with her and the Superintendent in any way he could. Mr. Rizer did not testify as to whether Ms. Baldwin or Mr. Reynolds briefed him on the previous spring’s events at Boone or gave him their opinion of Respondent’s mental and emotional state. Respondent took a few days’ personal leave, then reported at McLaughlin on Tuesday, August 5, 1997. Classes had not begun, but the faculty had returned to prepare for the approaching school year. Mr. Rizer testified that he greeted Respondent and told him he would introduce him to the faculty via the intercom. He told Respondent that he had no basic assignments for him that day and that Respondent should spend the day getting acquainted with the faculty. Alan Jostes was the Dean of Students at McLaughlin. He testified that he learned that morning there was a new assistant principal, and went to Respondent’s office to introduce himself. He testified that Mr. Rizer had assigned him to prepare the duty assignment list, and that he began going over the list with Respondent. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent saw his name on the list for morning bus duty and immediately became "very upset, yelling at me, ‘Why is my name on this? I don’t do any duties.’" Mr. Jostes told Respondent that he had simply plugged Respondent’s name into the spots on the list that had been filled by the previous assistant principal the year before. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became very angry with him: "I felt very threatened at that point. Accusing me of, you know, being insubordinate and not doing my job, when I was asked by the building Principal." Respondent testified that he never yelled at anybody. He stated that when he saw Mr. Jostes had assigned him to bus duty five days a week, he told Mr. Jostes, "I’m a rover. I have to do student, teachers, parent conferences in the morning. I have to check the teachers’ duty stations." Respondent told Mr. Jostes to take the morning bus duty until Respondent could evaluate the personnel and assign someone to the duty on a permanent basis. Mr. Jostes testified that things calmed down as he took Respondent for a tour of the various duty stations, but that Respondent again became agitated when he saw his name on the assignment list for eighth grade cafeteria duty. Mr. Jostes testified that Respondent became "very confrontational" and yelled at him. Mr. Jostes stated that at this point the conversation was going nowhere and he asked Respondent if he needed anything else. Respondent asked Mr. Jostes to show him the classrooms. They walked down the sixth and eighth grade hallways, after which Respondent said, "That’s all I need. You may go back to your office." Respondent agreed that Mr. Jostes took him around the campus. He testified that when he saw Mr. Jostes had put him down for one hour’s duty in the cafeteria, he informed Mr. Jostes that "I pull lunch duty all three hours. I said this is my time to be proactive with the students. I explained all this to him. And I said, Mr. Jostes, [you’re] really talking to me in a condescending manner. [You’re] talking to me like you’re the assistant principal. Mr. Jostes just kind of turned his head." Respondent testified that he then asked Mr. Jostes to show him the sixth and eighth grade wings, after which he told Mr. Jostes that was all he needed. Respondent’s version of these events is credited as a more objectively accurate statement, though it is found that Mr. Jostes’ honestly perceived that Respondent was "yelling" at him. In his demeanor while testifying, Mr. Jostes appeared to be a soft-spoken, sensitive, somewhat timorous gentleman. Respondent does not speak in a loud voice, but his voice does carry conviction and assertiveness. Respondent is also sensitive to what he perceives as condescension, and likely took on a stern tone when he felt Mr. Jostes was talking down to him. This in turn intimidated Mr. Jostes, who considered it "yelling." Supporting the finding that Mr. Jostes’ reactions do not provide an accurate measure of Respondent’s "anger" and propensity for "yelling" is the testimony of Gene Carroll, the in-school suspension instructor at McLaughlin. Over the course of two days, Respondent and Mr. Carroll engaged in serious discussions over the direction of the discipline program at McLaughlin. There were times when the two men were at loggerheads over changes that Respondent wished to make in the program. Despite these serious disagreements, Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent "always had a good attitude, I thought. Very pleasant to speak to, and I like him real well as far as [that]. I just didn’t like his program." Mr. Jostes testified that the next afternoon, he went to Respondent’s office at Respondent’s request. Mr. Jostes then stated: When I arrived back about 12:30, I went directly to his office. And I said, "Is now a good time?" And he’s sitting at his desk, and he said, "You need to shut both doors," after I walked into the office. The conversation in his office turned to, "You have an attitude. You’re very insubordinate to me," and it went from nothing to yelling and screaming at me. I mean, it was not a directive voice, it was yelling and screaming. "You’re insubordinate. You’re very . . . you have an attitude. And if you don’t like the way I do things around here, I’m going to find someone else for the job, and I will get you out of here." And he said, "Do you have any questions?" And before I could even answer that, he says, "And if you don’t like what I’m saying, we’ll get Mr. Rizer in here." And at that point, I said, "I think that would be a good idea." Respondent’s recollection of this incident was markedly different: I guess a little bit before 1:00, I called Mr. Jostes into my office, and I want to go over and want to make sure that he was prepared to, you know, take part, you know, in the afternoon [teachers’] meeting. Mr. Jostes [sat] down . . . and my door was here. I asked him, I said would you please close the door. He just [sat] there. And he said, I think we need to see Mr. Rizer. Q. Had you had a conversation? A. No. He said, I think we need to go see Mr. Rizer. So I said, all right, let’s go see Mr. Rizer. Respondent’s version of this encounter is credited. It appears that Mr. Jostes confused statements that Respondent made during the subsequent meeting with Mr. Rizer with statements made in Respondent’s office. It is also more plausible that Mr. Jostes would be the person to suggest taking their dispute to Mr. Rizer, because Mr. Jostes had a long-standing working relationship with Mr. Rizer. Respondent had met Mr. Rizer only the previous day. The two men went to Mr. Rizer’s office. Mr. Rizer testified that they came in because of Respondent’s concerns that Mr. Jostes was being insubordinate and trying to tell him what to do. Mr. Rizer testified that Mr. Jostes had already reported to him the difficulties he was having with Respondent. This supports Respondent’s testimony that it was Mr. Jostes who suggested a meeting with Mr. Rizer. Mr. Rizer testified that he attempted to explain to Respondent that he had assigned Mr. Jostes the duty assignment list, but had difficulty getting a word in edgewise. He testified that Respondent repeatedly interrupted him. Mr. Rizer testified that he became irritated and slammed his hand down on his desk and said, "Wait a minute. I’m the Principal here and I’m the boss. You’re not, and you’re going to do things my way." Mr. Rizer testified that Respondent settled down at that point and listened. Mr. Rizer testified that the latter portion of the meeting was productive. He explained to Respondent that he had carved out a special role for Mr. Jostes to further his career goals, and that role was somewhat different than that of the typical dean of students. Mr. Rizer testified that he felt there was a meeting of minds as to the way he had established things as principal of McLaughlin Middle School. Mr. Jostes and Respondent generally agreed with Mr. Rizer’s testimony regarding their meeting. Mr. Jostes agreed that the meeting ended calmly and positively. He also stated that he and Respondent returned to Respondent’s office after the meeting, and "we actually had a very productive communication." Respondent testified that in the early part of the meeting, he complained about the lack of cooperation from Mr. Jostes and told Mr. Rizer that "I can carry it by myself until we can bring in somebody who wants to cooperate and be my Dean of Students." Respondent did not recall Mr. Rizer's slamming his hand on the desk, but agreed there came a point at which Mr. Rizer asserted control of the meeting and Respondent listened to what he said. Respondent testified that by meeting’s end, all three participants seemed happy. Mr. Jostes agreed that Respondent seemed better to understand the situation on the campus at the end of the meeting. Respondent said to Mr. Jostes, "Let’s get out of here and go to work." They returned to Respondent’s office and prepared for the afternoon meetings, then sat together in those meetings for the rest of the afternoon. Gene Carroll was in charge of the In-School Suspension ("ISS") program at McLaughlin. On the afternoon of August 5, he introduced himself to Respondent and showed him a copy of the written protocols for the ISS program. Mr. Carroll testified that Respondent handed the paper back to him and said that he did not want a concrete program because he preferred flexibility in making disciplinary decisions. This commenced a substantive dispute, the narrow details of which are unnecessary to recite in this Order. In essence, Respondent had been in charge of discipline at Boone and had run it with a measure of personal discretion in meting out punishment. The program at McLaughlin was a more lockstep system of progressive punishment. Mr. Carroll conceded that Respondent’s program worked well at Boone, but testified that he and Mr. Rizer believed the stricter program was needed at McLaughlin because of its larger and more diverse student population. Respondent believed that his methods were in keeping with school district policy, and that McLaughlin was out of step with the district’s disciplinary philosophy. Mr. Carroll believed that Respondent was "coming on a little strong" in light of the facts that he had just been assigned to the school, that he was unfamiliar with the McLaughlin community and problems, and especially that the McLaughlin ISS program had been developed by Mr. Rizer when he was Assistant Principal for Discipline. However, Mr. Carroll stated that his differences with Respondent were philosophical, not personal. The only point of contention was Mr. Carroll’s testimony that at one point in the discussions, Respondent told him that he would do it Mr. Rizer’s way for a while, but then would run the program as he saw fit. Mr. Carroll testified that he told Respondent that he needed to talk to Mr. Rizer and straighten things out. Respondent testified that Mr. Carroll misunderstood his comments. He was trying to convey to Mr. Carroll that as disciplinarian, he believed he had to personalize the program. He testified that he was willing to do things in any way Mr. Rizer saw fit. Respondent stated that he told Mr. Carroll to do exactly what Mr. Rizer told him to do. Mr. Carroll agreed that Respondent accepted the ISS program once he understood it. Mr. Carroll’s written statement of events concluded, "I left with a very good feeling that everything would be fine and we would continue our successful program." On Friday, August 8, 1997, Respondent attended a semi- annual district-wide meeting of assistant principals, school resource officers, and deans of students. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss code of conduct and other disciplinary issues. The meeting was chaired by Robert Bondurant, Director of Discipline and Security for the Polk County School Board. During the meeting, Respondent raised his hand during a question session. Mr. Bondurant recognized him. Respondent asked if the district could provide a written definition of the duties and scope of authority of assistant principals and school resource officers. Mr. Bondurant testified that this was a prudent request and agreed to provide the requested definition. While he had the floor, Respondent also spoke for several minutes about his own dispute with Officer Nixon regarding the scope of the SRO’s authority on the Boone campus, and the response of district administrators to the dispute. Mr. Bondurant characterized this portion of Respondent’s remarks as an unprofessional "lambasting" of district administration for its handling of Respondent’s situation. Mr. Bondurant did not believe that what took place between Respondent and his principal or district administration was a proper subject for this meeting, even though it provided the factual context of Respondent’s request for written definitions of duties. Mr. Bondurant conceded that his was a subjective judgment, and that another witness might have no objection to Respondent’s statements. Mr. Jostes was present at the meeting and agreed with Mr. Bondurant that Respondent’s comments were inappropriate. He opined that Respondent was "airing out a lot of anger and frustrations that should have been done in a one-on-one situation with . . . the powers that be in the county." Mr. Jostes, too, conceded that this was his subjective assessment of Respondent’s statements. Patricia Barnes is an assistant principal at Mulberry High School, and was present at the meeting. She testified that Respondent spoke for a long time, but that he spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the audience of assistant principals, deans of students, and school resource officers. Keith Mitchell is a 17-year veteran of the City of Bartow Police Department. He was present at the meeting and testified that Respondent spoke in a professional manner and that his statements were relevant to the subject matter of the meeting. On the afternoon of August 8, 1997, a coordinated letter writing effort began. It is unclear precisely who instigated this effort, but the testimony of Dennis Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, makes it clear that Mr. Rizer was instructed by someone in the Superintendent’s office to write a statement. Mr. Dunn testified that he could not recall the precise date when the instruction was given or whether the instruction came directly from Mr. Reynolds or from an associate superintendent. He conceded that the instruction had to have been given some time between Tuesday, August 5, when Respondent commenced work at McLaughlin, and Friday, August 8, when the letters were written. In any event, on August 8, 1997, Mr. Rizer wrote a three-page memorandum to Glenn Reynolds in which he repeated, as fact, the accusations of Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll concerning events which Mr. Rizer did not witness. He also repeated comments made by "a teacher," who allegedly told him that "a lot of other teachers" had "concerns" about Respondent. One of these "other teachers" "wondered how many personalities Mr. Mickens has." Mr. Rizer stated that "he was told" that Respondent "seemed not to have his act together" while speaking at a faculty meeting. Mr. Rizer skipped the faculty meeting to write the memorandum. Most damaging to Respondent was the following statement in Mr. Rizer’s memorandum: I personally have some concerns about Mr. Mickens; one minute he is calm and the next minute he is very angry. This man has a lot of anger and I feel something serious could happen when he is in his angry state. I do not feel comfortable him being here. Mr. Rizer spent a total of two to three hours in the same room as Respondent. He estimated that he spent about a half-hour with Respondent in a one-on-one basis. He claimed to have seen Respondent become angry one time and testified that Respondent calmed down after Mr. Rizer asserted himself and that they went on to have a productive meeting. Mr. Rizer had no factual basis for the opinion quoted above, plainly implying that he believes Respondent is a danger to the school. He witnessed nothing that would lead a rational person to fear that Respondent might do "something serious." His sources of information were the exaggerations of Mr. Jostes and some hallway gossip by unnamed teachers. Even Mr. Carroll testified that there was no problem with Respondent’s behavior. At the hearing, Mr. Rizer denied that his memorandum was an attempt to portray Respondent as an emotionally unstable person. In fact, this appears to have been his precise purpose. In addition to writing his own memorandum, Mr. Rizer secured written statements from Mr. Jostes, Mr. Carroll, and Russell Aaron, a teacher at McLaughlin. Also on August 8, Mr. Bondurant wrote a letter to Mr. Reynolds concerning Respondent’s comments at the assistant principals’ meeting, a further indication that the Superintendent’s office was coordinating this effort. The letters from Mr. Jostes and Mr. Carroll recapitulate their testimony outlined above. Mr. Carroll states that he is writing his letter "at the request of Mr. Rizer." The letter from Mr. Aaron to Mr. Rizer, dated August 8, 1997, states, in full: After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens, I felt I should write this letter about an incident that took place last week. On Friday, August 1, 1997, I was riding by the school and saw Mr. Hardee [the former Assistant Principal at McLaughlin] standing in front of the school. I had already been informed that he was leaving our school so I stopped to tell him goodbye. He was talking to another man and when I walked up he introduced Mr. Mickens to me. I asked Mr. Hardee [why] he was leaving McLaughlin Middle and he said Mrs. Baldwin asked him to. At that Mr. Mickens said "Carolyn Baldwin, that Fat Bitch, I’m suing her, Glenn Reynolds and all those Bitches over there. I got my Due Process, they didn’t give me my Due Process. I’m gonna get all of them." At that point you walked out of the door and he (Mr. Mickens) stopped talking and walked back in the building with you. Mr. Aaron testified at the hearing. Mr. Hardee did not. Despite the statement that he was writing this letter "After your phone call this evening about the situation with Mr. Mickens," Mr. Aaron testified that it was he who called Mr. Rizer, on a Friday evening a week after the alleged incident occurred. When asked why he waited a week before calling Mr. Rizer about this incident, Mr. Aaron stated, "I think maybe we had talked about it at school, and then we talked about me putting it in writing, and I had called him that night or something, about how I was supposed to go about doing that. He knew about it before that week was out." This testimony cannot be credited. The letter itself indicates that Mr. Aaron was solicited by Mr. Rizer on Friday evening, not vice versa. Given the opprobrious hearsay that Mr. Rizer saw fit to include in his own memorandum to Mr. Reynolds, it is implausible to believe he would not have included this incident had he known of it on Friday afternoon. Mr. Aaron testified that he had never met Respondent before this incident. He testified that Respondent made his statements at the mention of Ms. Baldwin’s name. He testified that neither he nor Mr. Hardee used any profanity during this conversation. Mr. Aaron’s testimony is credited to the extent that Respondent made some sort of derogatory comments about Ms. Baldwin and Mr. Reynolds. Given the prior testimony regarding Respondent’s character and manner, it seems unlikely that he would have erupted with such vehement language, particularly in front of a complete stranger and without so much as a nudge from those in his company. Under the circumstances of the conversation, it also seems unlikely that Respondent was the only person present who made derogatory remarks about district administrators. Mr. Aaron’s credibility is compromised by his equivocations about the phone call from Mr. Rizer, and by the fact that he did nothing for a week and apparently required some coaxing to write his letter reporting the incident. These findings are also influenced by the fact that Mr. Hardee did not testify to corroborate Mr. Aaron’s story. It is found that Mr. Rizer’s actions on August 8, 1997, were out of all proportion to the minor incidents that occurred on the McLaughlin campus, which a rational person might attribute to a new assistant principal’s over-eagerness to take control and make a good impression and to the natural resistance he would meet from entrenched employees less than eager to change their established methods of doing business. The testimony of Respondent, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jostes, and even Mr. Rizer himself, indicated that Respondent was beginning to settle in to a smooth working relationship with his peers at McLaughlin after an admittedly rocky start. Mr. Rizer’s actions are made even more irrational by the fact that, though he was contemplating action that he hoped would remove Respondent from the campus, he never mentioned to Respondent that there was even a problem. Respondent testified that he believed things were going well at McLaughlin. He presided over an open house on the morning of Thursday, August 7, 1997, and over teacher meetings all that afternoon with Mr. Jostes. He testified that these were "great" meetings. Respondent testified that after he returned from the assistant principals’ meeting on Friday, Mr. Carroll approached him and told him "point blank" that he would work with Respondent in every way. Respondent testified that he liked Mr. Carroll very much, and that Mr. Carroll seemed to like him. Mr. Rizer had given him a project to complete by Friday. He intervened in a situation in which a parent had a "heated, profane argument" with a school secretary, and resolved it such that the parent left the school "super happy." He made a short presentation to the teachers on Friday afternoon, then completed a video for a presentation he planned to make on Monday. Counsel for Respondent pressed the theory that the transfer to McLaughlin was a set-up from the outset, that the Superintendent’s office planned from the beginning to move Respondent there for a short period before cooking up some reason to terminate him. Based on the evidence presented, it would be fair to reach this conclusion. However, a more plausible explanation of events is that, at the time Ms. Baldwin asked Mr. Rizer about the trade of assistant principals between Boone and McLaughlin, she or someone else in the Superintendent’s office fully briefed Mr. Rizer about the events at Boone and their aftermath. It makes sense that anyone in Mr. Rizer’s position would ask why Ms. Baldwin wanted to make this switch and that she would respond with a recitation of the Boone events according to Ms. Killebrew. If Mr. Rizer "knew" on August 23 that he was getting an emotionally unstable, insubordinate, over-stressed employee who had been ordered to visit a psychologist and refused to release the results, then his disproportionate response to Respondent’s actions and the fearful tone of his letter become understandable. Nothing in the record directly indicates that Mr. Rizer had been briefed about Respondent before he arrived, but that is a rational explanation for his actions. Respondent had no idea of the machinations going on between Mr. Rizer and the Superintendent’s office until the morning of Saturday, August 9, 1997. Dennis Dunn phoned Respondent and told him not to report to the school on the following Monday. Rather, Respondent was told to report to the district office. Respondent reported to the district office on Monday, August 11, 1997. He was told to turn in his keys and handed a letter from Mr. Reynolds that read, in relevant part: Based upon reports of your misconduct in office and gross insubordination, which are grounds for suspension or termination of your employment as provided in Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, please be advised that I am suspending you with pay effective August 11, 1997 pending the completion of an investigation. You will be given an opportunity to give your explanations regarding the accusations and will be notified of the results of the investigation. As with the incidents at Boone, there was no "investigation" of the events at McLaughlin as that term is commonly used, i.e., an independent effort to ascertain the relevant facts. Mr. Reynolds and his subordinates simply took at face value the materials provided by Mr. Rizer and others, then met to decide on a course of discipline for Respondent. This is borne out by Mr. Reynolds’ letter to Respondent of August 14, 1997, stating, "Enclosed are letters and reports of incidents upon which I could impose disciplinary action." In other words, the "investigation" lasted less than three days, and the investigative report consisted of the letters from Messrs. Rizer, Jostes, Carroll, Aaron, and Bondurant. Mr. Reynolds testified that he met with Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Londeree, Mr. Dunn, and his legal counsel, Donald Wilson, Jr., to deliberate action against Respondent. This meeting was not noticed or open to the public. Respondent was given no notice or opportunity to attend. Mr. Reynolds solicited and received the advice and recommendations of those present at the meeting. He received legal advice from Mr. Wilson. Mr. Dunn testified that the group "collectively" participated in the decision-making process. On August 29, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent’s lawyer, which stated in relevant part: I am writing this letter at the direction of the Superintendent. It is the Superintendent’s opinion that Mr. Mickens’ actions constitute misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that generally his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct the Superintendent reasonably requires from school based administrators. Further, Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools have made it impossible for him to continue to effectively perform the duties of an assistant principal. In summary, the Superintendent has concluded that Mr. Mickens has specifically engaged in misconduct in office as an assistant principal and that his conduct generally is so serious as to constitute just cause for termination of his position as an assistant principal. The Superintendent will be recommending to the School Board at its regular meeting on September 9, 1997 that Mr. Mickens be removed as an assistant principal. He will continue to be suspended with pay until that time. Mr. Mickens holds a professional services contract pursuant to Section 231.36(3), Florida Statutes, and the Superintendent’s recommendation regarding his contract as an assistant principal is not intended to affect his professional services contract. Accordingly, if the School Board should act favorably on the recommendation on September 9th, Mr. Mickens will be asked to report on September 10, 1997 to Assistant Superintendent Denny Dunn to available teaching positions to determine an appropriate position to which Mr. Mickens will be assigned. It is noted that Mr. Reynolds’ suspension letter of August 11 also accused Respondent of "gross insubordination." Mr. Wilson’s letter mentions only "misconduct in office." The reference to "Mr. Mickens’ actions at both Boone Middle School and McLaughlin Middle School and his conduct toward and statements to members of the staff at those schools" is as close to a formal statement of factual allegations as Respondent ever received in this process. No formal charging document enumerating the facts upon which the Superintendent based his recommendation was ever provided to Respondent or this tribunal, even after Judge Cave directed the School Board to provide a statement of factual allegations at the motion hearing of February 25, 1999. No charging document was ever filed setting forth the particular provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code, or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, that Respondent was alleged to have violated. In fact, Petitioner’s first mention of those rules in this case occurred in its Proposed Recommended Order. At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the School Board took up the Superintendent’s recommendation. Mr. Reynolds addressed the School Board, reciting that Respondent "has engaged in a series of actions which constitute misconduct in office as an Assistant principal, and that his ongoing conduct and repeated actions are generally and wholly incompatible with the standard of conduct we reasonably require from school based administrators." Mr. Reynolds did not state any factual allegation against Respondent. During the lengthy deliberations that ensued, at least two members of the School Board voiced concerns over being asked to vote on a matter without knowing any of the underlying facts. The School Board’s lawyer was Steven L. Selph. Mr. Selph advised the School Board that it would be "inappropriate" and possibly "prejudicial" for the board to hear the alleged facts of the case because the board would later be required to enter a final order. Mr. Selph advised the board that its only choices were to vote on the Superintendent’s recommendation in a factual vacuum, or to hold a full evidentiary hearing before the board itself. Mr. Selph stated that "the main thing the board has to consider is whether the recommendation is based on just cause for the purpose of approving it subject to the outcome of a hearing." Mr. Selph did not explain to the inquiring board members how they could determine "just cause" when they did not know what Respondent was alleged to have done. Mr. Selph assured the School Board that its adoption of the Superintendent’s recommendation was a mere formality necessary to trigger Respondent’s right to a formal administrative hearing. Comments by School Board members prior to their vote indicate that they accepted Mr. Selph’s opinion that the vote was essentially procedural, a necessary step to secure Respondent’s right to an administrative hearing, and thus the board did not need to know the factual allegations. Mr. Selph did not explain that the School Board’s vote to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation would become final agency action if Respondent did not timely request an administrative hearing. On the basis of the Superintendent’s recommendation that Respondent committed misconduct in office, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent from his assistant principal position and to place Respondent into a teacher’s position during the pendency of any administrative hearing. It is found that the School Board’s action was a perfunctory ratification of a decision made earlier by Mr. Reynolds in consultation with his subordinates and lawyer. While there was a lengthy discussion of procedural matters at the School Board meeting, no discussion of the ultimate facts alleged to constitute misconduct in office, or of any facts at all, was allowed. Thus, the School Board did not and could not assess the merits of Mr. Reynolds’ probable cause determination. The School Board’s vote was simply a vote of confidence in Mr. Reynolds. The undersigned viewed a videotape of the School Board meeting. Respondent addressed the board concerning the denial of due process he believed was about to occur. It is noted that Respondent’s presentation was forceful and articulate, but not disrespectful, loud, angry or abusive. It is also noted that Mr. Reynolds testified that Respondent was "agitated." By letter dated September 10, 1997, Mr. Reynolds formally notified Respondent that his employment as an assistant principal had been terminated and that he would be returned to an appropriate teaching position for the remainder of the 1997-1998 school year. Mr. Reynolds’ letter also made reference to a statement made by Respondent to Mr. Dunn that he could not return to a teaching position at that time and desired to use his accumulated sick leave. The letter informed Respondent that he could use the leave if he provided medical certification from a physician that he was unable to work and the anticipated amount of time he would be away from work. Mr. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resource Services, testified that Respondent was placed in a teaching position because "my hands were tied" by the fact that Respondent had a continuing contract that had to be honored. By letter dated September 14, 1997, Respondent requested an administrative hearing regarding his termination as an assistant principal. The letter also stated that Respondent would provide the requested medical certification. On November 5, 1997, Mr. Wilson wrote on behalf of Superintendent Reynolds to Respondent. Mr. Wilson reminded Respondent of his September 14, 1997, letter promising medical certification to justify his sick leave and of a conversation he had with Respondent on November 3, 1997, during which Respondent indicated he had a doctor’s appointment to obtain the certification on November 17. Mr. Wilson informed Respondent that the physician’s certification must be received by Mr. Londeree on or before November 20, 1997, and that failure timely to file the certification would be deemed an abandonment of Respondent’s employment with the Polk County School Board. Respondent never provided the physician’s certification. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Londeree testified as to a conference call with Respondent, during which Respondent conceded that he was not sick but that he could not come back to work under the circumstances. Respondent confirmed that he did not accept the teaching position because his reputation had been destroyed. He believed that he could not be effective in the classroom because people were afraid of him. By letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Reynolds notified Respondent that he had been determined to have abandoned his teacher’s position and that Mr. Reynolds would recommend to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. At its meeting of January 13, 1998, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent’s employment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent for the remainder of his assistant principal contract for the 1997-1998 school year, and enter into assistant principal contracts with Respondent for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn Reynolds, Superintendent School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33831-0391
The Issue Whether the Petitioners have standing to institute a rule challenge proceeding under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Whether a school board may delegate the authority to suspend an employee without pay to the superintendent in specific instances for a limited period of time.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, COLLIER COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, (hereinafter CCEA) is the instructional bargaining unit for teachers in the Collier County School District. The Petitioner, COLLIER SUPPORT PERSONNEL-NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, (hereinafter CSP-NEA) is the certified bargaining agent for the non-instructional employees of the Collier County School District. The above mentioned Petitioners are affiliates of the Petitioner, FLORIDA TEACHING PROFESSION NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (hereinafter FTPNEA). As a result of collective bargaining agreements which allow the Petitioners CCEA and CSP-NEA to represent specific categories of employees of the school district, sixty five to seventy per cent of these employees are represented by these associations.. The Respondent SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, (hereinafter SCHOOL BOARD) has a rule that delegates the authority to suspend employees wholly or partially without pay to the superintendent. Under Rule No. R-18/81, such a suspension cannot exceed a period of three days, and the superintendent's authority is limited to five situations which have been specifically set forth in the body of the rule. A suspension is authorized only if the superintendent finds that the employee has: a) been absent without leave, b) been insubordinate, c) endangered the health or well-being of a fellow employee or of a student or students, d) willfully neglected duty, e) been intoxicated, consumed an alcoholic beverage, or used a controlled substance (unless prescribed by a physician,) while working. The rule cites Sections 230.23 and 230.33, Florida Statutes, as the authority for the implementation of this delegation process. The rule was adopted can December 17, 1981. Rule No. R-18/81 requires that any employee suspended by the superintendent under this rule be given all due process rights under the Florida Statutes, including those authorized by the Administrative Procedures Act. Pursuant to Rule No. R-18/81, the superintendent has suspended at least two employees in 1988. One of these employees is Mr. Robert Koy, who is represented by the Petitioner, CSP-NEA, in a proceeding currently before the Division of Administrative Hearings in which the employee's substantial interests are being determined. The process and procedures utilized by the Respondent SCHOOL BOARD in its suspension of employees without pay falls within the general scope of interests and activities of all of the Petitioners in this case. A substantial number of the members of the Petitioners CCEA and CSP- NEA are substantially affected by the challenged rule as it involves the disciplinary procedures used by the Respondent SCHOOL BOARD to manage its employees. Such procedures are included in the agreement between the Collier County Public Schools and the Petitioner CSP-NEA, which is in effect from October 1, 1987 through June 30, 1990. This agreement has been admitted into evidence in this proceeding. The relief sought by all of the Petitioners in this proceeding is that Rule No. R-18/81 be declared invalid. This relief is an appropriate remedy for each of the Petitioners to seek on behalf of its members in a rule challenge proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Bain holds Florida teaching certificate number 480711, issued by the Department of Education, covering the area of music education. During the 1981-1982 school year, the Respondent was employed as a permanent substitute teacher by the Dade County School District to teach music education at Miami Jackson Senior High School. On May 21, 1982, the Respondent's students at Miami Jackson held a surprise birthday party for the Respondent. The party began during the first period and concluded during the lunch hour. Punch, cake and cookies were officially served at the party which took place in the chorus room. During the course of the party, at least one student brought an alcoholic beverage into the Respondent's classroom. The Respondent became aware of the alcohol when he smelled it. Since he didn't know who had the alcohol, the Respondent told his class that "whoever has it, get it out of here because its serious consequences for you." (Tr.90) The Respondent believed that the problem had been solved by his warning since the alcohol smell subsided. While the birthday party was in progress, a female student, Ophelia Garcia, entered Respondent's classroom and joined the party. Although Ophelia was not a student in any of the Respondent's classes, he wrote her a pass so that she could attend the party. Approximately ten minutes following her arrival at the party, Ophelia became ill and had to be physically assisted from the classroom. The Respondent ordered two or three students to take Ophelia to the clinic; unknown to him, however, the students instead chose to take Ophelia to a bathroom. Ophelia eventually was taken to the school's administrative offices. She was described as totally intoxicated and the fire rescue squad was called to render assistance. Later that day, Percy Oliver, the principal, received a call from his area office concerning a complaint from parents regarding students becoming intoxicated during a party in the chorus room. Following this call, Oliver called the Respondent into his office and confronted him with the allegations that alcoholic beverages were present during the party. The Respondent repeatedly denied that any alcoholic beverages were present in his class during the party. Several days later, the Respondent admitted to Oliver that alcohol was in the classroom. Based upon the Respondent's failure to take reasonable efforts to eliminate alcoholic beverages from his classroom and his initial false answers to Oliver's questions, it was recommended that the Respondent's employment with the school district be terminated. Dr. Patrick Gray, executive director of the Division of Personnel Control, Dade County School District, held a conference for the record with the Respondent on August 16, 1982. During the conference, the Respondent admitted that Ophelia had become ill due to consumption of alcohol at the party; that he had used poor judgment in failing to personally assist Ophelia when she became ill; and that he had lied to his principal in order to protect students who were at his party. As a result of the conference, the Respondent was restricted from employment with the school district until November 1, 1982, and restricted from that date forward to teaching in a substitute capacity, with the proviso that his conduct would be closely monitored. As a permanent substitute teacher, the Respondent's employment automatically terminated at the conclusion of the 1981- 1982 school year. In Dr. Gray's professional opinion, the Respondent's actions were such that ". . .his integrity as a professional educator and. . .the integrity of the profession. . .had been impugned and, further, that his. . .failure to exercise proper responsibility. . .is such that the continued licensure of this individual. . .should have been. . .and was investigated." In his judgment, ". . .those actions did constitute sufficient cause to question his retention of a teaching license." (Tr.44) Norma Gandes and Reverend Michael Loomis testified as character witnesses for the Respondent. Both consider him truthful and trustworthy. Since June, 1982, the Respondent has worked for Reverend Loomis directing a church music program and serving as a church organist. Other than the incident in question, the Respondent has not been involved in any other disciplinary proceedings while employed as a teacher by the school board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission issue a Final Order finding the Respondent Alonzo Bain guilty of violating Rules 6B-1.06(3)(a) and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, placing a written reprimand in the Respondent's certification file as authorized by Section 231.262(7)(f), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such conduct constitutes just cause to dismiss her from her teaching position, as further alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Background Information The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Arch Creek Elementary School (Arch Creek)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. At all times material to the instant case, Dr. Marie Bazile was the principal of Arch Creek. Respondent has been employed as a teacher by the School Board since 2005. She presently holds a professional services contract with the School Board. Respondent taught at Arch Creek for parts of the 2008- 2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years, initially as a third grade teacher (during the first couple of weeks of the 2008-2009 school year) and then as a kindergarten teacher. As an instructional employee of the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD (UTD Contract). Article XXI of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployee [r]ights and [d]ue [p]rocess." Section 1.A.1. of Article XXI provides that "the [School] Board and [UTD] recognize the principle of progressive discipline," that they "agree that disciplinary action may be consistent with the concept of progressive discipline when the [School] Board deems it appropriate," and that "the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." Section 1.B.1.a. of Article XXI provides that "[a]ny member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Section 1.B.2. of Article XXI provides, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " Parental Complaints During the 2009-2010 school year, several parents complained to Principal Bazile about Respondent's allowing the students in her kindergarten class to "run[] in the street" at dismissal time.3 As a result of receiving these complaints, Principal Bazile "wrote [Respondent] up" and went over with Respondent the dismissal procedures that all classroom teachers at Arch Creek were expected to follow.4 FAIR Training Also during the 2009-2010 school year, when asked to participate in mandatory FAIR (Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading) training given by Arch Creek's reading coach, Respondent initially did not acquiesce, but, rather, indicated she first wanted to contact UTD to find out if she could be made to take this training notwithstanding that she would not be receiving any "master plan points" for her time and effort. After her inquiry was answered in the affirmative by the UTD representative with whom she spoke, she willingly underwent the training. Bathroom Incident On November 18, 2010, shortly before the school day was to begin, one of Respondent's fellow kindergarten teachers at Arch Creek, Nancy Kurre, called in sick. There was insufficient time to locate a substitute teacher to cover Ms. Kurre's class, so the students in her class were reassigned to other kindergarten classes for the day. Marie Beaubien, Arch Creek's kindergarten/first grade "chair," made the reassignments. Among the reassigned students was F., a boy with behavioral issues who had difficulty remaining in his seat and would constantly wander off, frequently to the bathroom, without Ms. Kurre's permission. F. was reassigned to Respondent's class, much to the displeasure of Respondent, who felt that she was ill-prepared to accommodate F., whom she knew to be a "difficult child," in her classroom. F. was escorted to Respondent's classroom by Socra Antenor, the school secretary. From the outset, F. was a disruptive influence in the classroom. At around 8:30 a.m., Ms. Beaubien went to the school office to look for F. after having been told by another kindergarten teacher that F. was not in Respondent's classroom, where he was supposed to be. In fact, although Respondent had decided to remove F. from her classroom and to take him to the office because she did not "want to deal with [him]" and his disruptive behavior, she had not yet done so as a result of her having been preoccupied with other matters, which diverted her attention away from F. Ms. Antenor was in the office when Ms. Beaubien came by. She told Ms. Beaubien that F. was not there and that he should still be in Respondent's classroom. Ms. Beaubien then went to Respondent's classroom. Ms. Antenor followed closely behind her. When Ms. Beaubien got to Respondent's classroom, she asked Respondent if F. was there. Although F. was not where Respondent had last seen him, nor anywhere else in the instructional space of the classroom, Respondent was confident that he had not exited the classroom. She assumed, given what she knew of F.'s behavioral history in school, that F. had wandered into the classroom's bathroom when her attention was directed elsewhere. It turned out her assumption was correct. When she and Ms. Beaubien went to the bathroom and the door was opened, F. was inside. As F. walked out of the bathroom, Ms. Beaubien took him by the hand and brought him to the school office. Ms. Beaubien erroneously thought that she had heard Respondent admit to having "locked" F. in the bathroom. In fact, not only had Respondent not made such a statement, there was no way she could have locked F. in the bathroom inasmuch as the bathroom door could not be locked from the outside. Nonetheless, Ms. Beaubien reported to Principal Bazile that the statement had been made. The School Board's Civil Investigative Unit (CIU) was thereafter notified and a CIU personnel investigation was begun (Bathroom Incident Investigation). A CIU investigative report, containing the following findings, was subsequently prepared, and it received final approval on December 15, 2010: Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. Outdoor Lunch Detention Incident December 8, 2010, was an unseasonably cold day in the Miami-Dade County area, but that did not deter at least three of Arch Creek's teachers--Respondent, Edouard St. Hilaire, and Paul Fabre--from eating their lunch, at around 10:15 a.m. that day, at tables (with benches) in the outdoor patio area just outside the school cafeteria. Mr. Hilaire, who was wearing a jacket, and Mr. Fabre, who was wearing a blazer, were together at the same table, while Respondent, who was wearing a sweater and pants, was seated several tables away.5 With Respondent was a student of hers who was serving a lunch detention she had meted out. The student had on layers of clothing, including a sweat suit top (worn as an outer garment) that (at least to Mr. Fabre, from his vantage point6) looked like a blouse,7 under which were shirts of some kind.8 Both Mr. Hilaire and Mr. Fabre believed that it was too cold for the student to be eating outdoors, and they so advised Respondent and suggested to her that she send the student inside, back into the cafeteria. To allay her colleagues' concerns, Respondent followed their suggestion, notwithstanding her belief (which has not been shown to be unreasonable) that their concerns were unfounded and that the student was indeed dressed warmly enough to be outside.9 Mr. St. Hilaire reported the incident to Principal Bazile because he thought that Respondent had done something that was "not proper." The CIU was thereafter notified and a CIU personnel investigation was begun (Lunch Detention Incident Investigation). A CIU investigative report, containing the following findings, was subsequently prepared, and it received final approval on January 12, 2011: Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. Based on the information obtained from all parties, Ms. Kiara Higgs is in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, and there is PROBABLE CAUSE. False 911 Call Paul Greenfield is a Region Administrative Director with the School Board. On the Friday before the start of the 2010-2011 school year winter recess, Mr. Greenfield met with Respondent at the School Board's regional office in Hialeah to formally notify her of the Lunch Detention Incident Investigation and to have her sign paperwork that would enable her to get paid during the winter recess. Respondent was in a foul mood at the time of the meeting. She was already upset that, despite her sincere protestations of innocence, the Bathroom Incident Investigation had resulted in findings of probable cause. Being informed by Mr. Greenfield that she was the subject of another CIU personnel investigation did nothing to improve Respondent's mood. Rather, it made her even more upset and prompted her to tell Mr. Greenfield that she did not feel well and wanted to leave. Mr. Greenfield responded by requesting that Respondent stay so that she could fill out paperwork that would "facilitate [her] getting paid." Respondent, in a very agitated tone of voice, expressed her unwillingness to comply with Mr. Greenfield's request. Mr. Greenfield then said to her, "Ms. Higgs, if you would just wait a few more minutes, but it's certainly up to you. I'm not going to hold you." Respondent's reaction was to call 911 on her cell phone and falsely report that she was being held against her will by her employer at the Hialeah regional office, knowing full well that this was not true and that, as Mr. Greenfield had made clear to her, she was free to leave if she so chose. Indeed, immediately after placing the call, Respondent did walk away from Mr. Greenfield. She did not go very far, however. After turning the corner in the hallway, she wound up on the hallway floor. Fire rescue personnel were summoned to the scene. They examined Respondent. Finding that Respondent did not need any further medical attention, they cleared her to leave. Respondent then left the building.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order finding that there is "just cause" to suspend or dismiss Respondent on, and only on, the charge, made in Counts II and III of the Notice of Specific Charges, that in December 2010, she violated School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 by making a 911 call falsely claiming that she was being held against her will at the at School Board's regional office in Hialeah, and, based on such finding, suspending her, without pay, until the end of the regular 2011- 2012 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Prior to May 18, 1977, the Respondent was employed by the School Board as a driver education teacher and head football coach at Miami South Ridge High School. At approximately 3:00 A.M. on May 15, 1977, the Respondent left his home in Miami, Florida, and drove to the back of a business located at 7211 S. W. 40th Street in Miami, Florida. John F. Allen operates a boat, motor, and trailer sales, service, and repair business at that location. In the back of the building there is a work area that is surrounded by a chain link fence. Customers' boats and motors are stored in this area while work is done on them in the shop. The Respondent walked down an alleyway along the fenced area, and climbed over the fence. He removed an outboard motor from a boat, and pulled it away from the boat toward the fence. The Respondent did not work in the boat yard, and he was not authorized to be there after regular business hours. There was no direct evidence as to the Respondent's intentions. The circumstance of his being in the fenced in portion of the boat yard at between 3:00 A.M. and 4:00 A.M. and the circumstance of his removing an outboard motor from a boat, and carrying it toward the fence, lead inescapably to the conclusion that the Respondent was seeking to steal the engine. The Respondent did not remove the engine from the boat yard. For unknown reasons, he abandoned his effort to steal the engine and left the boat yard. The Respondent was not armed with any weapon, and no other person was in the boat yard while he was there. The outboard engine which the Respondent was attempting to steal was a 40 horsepower Johnson outboard engine. The weight of the engine is approximately 140 pounds. The engine has a wholesale value of approximately $250. Even if the engine were in the worst possible operating condition, it would still be worth approximately $150. While the Respondent was in the boat yard, two police officers employed by the Dade County Public Safety Department were undertaking a routine patrol of the area in an unmarked car. They observed the Respondent's automobile parked adjacent to the boat yard. One of the officers walked along the chain link fence in back of the boat yard and observed the Respondent inside the yard holding an engine. There was heavy vegetation along the fence, but the police officer was able to see through it at one point. The officer went back to his car, and told his partner what he had witnessed. Shortly thereafter the Respondent came out of the alley, got into his car, and drove away. The police officers turned on a flashing light in their car, pulled up behind the Respondent's car, and stopped him. The Respondent was placed under arrest. The police officer read the Respondent his rights from a "Miranda card". During interrogation after the arrest the Respondent pointed out the motor that he had removed from the boat, and told the officers were he had gotten it. The Respondent was then taken to a police station where he was fingerprinted, and later released on bail. A criminal action is now pending against the Respondent in the courts in Dade County. Tools of a sort which could have been used in perpetration of a burglary were found in the Respondent's pockets and on the floor of the Respondent's automobile by the police after they stopped him. There was no evidence presented that these tools were used by the Respondent in breaking into the boat yard or in removing the outboard engine from the boat. There was no evidence that the Respondent intended to use the tools for these purposes. There was evidence presented that the tools were put in the automobile by a friend of the Respondent's wife. There is insufficient evidence from which it could be concluded that the Respondent intended to use the tools to commit any trespass or burglary. The School Board acted promptly to suspend the Respondent from his position at South Ridge High School. The instant proceeding ensued.
The Issue Whether revocation of Respondent's state certification requires his dismissal by the Pinellas County School Board and, if so, has Respondents' certificate been revoked for these purposes by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was employed on the instructional staff of the Pinellas County School system under a Professional Services Contract. On October 23, 1985, Respondent was issued a Florida Department of Education Teacher's Certificate valid through June 30, 1990. By Administrative Complaint dated October 31, 1988, the Commissioner of Education alleged Respondent violated Sections 231.28 (1)(a), (c), (e), (h), and (2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), (f), (g), and (h), Florida Administrative Code. These allegations constitute grounds for revocation of Respondent's certificate. Respondent waived formal hearing, and requested informal proceedings before the EPC. These informal proceedings resulted in a Final Order filed February 17, 1989 in which Respondent's teaching certificate was revoked for three years. The action of the EPC was announced orally at the informal hearing on January 26, 1989, and on February 3, 1989, Respondent filed a Motion to Rescind Election of Rights previously waiving formal proceedings and to set aside agency action. On February 22, 1989, Respondent filed a motion with EPC for a stay pending final review in which he requested the action of the EPC revoking his certificate be stayed pending action by the EPC on his February 3rd motion. On February 23, 1989, an order was entered by the EPC granting the stay pending reconsideration of the order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate On May 30, 1989, the EPC entered an order denying Respondent's demand for reconsideration and affirming it's final order revoking Respondent's certificate. An appeal from that order had previously been filed with the Second District Court of Appeals, but jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals had been relinquished to allow the EPC to reconsider. On July 25, 1989, Respondent filed in the Second District of Appeals a Motion to Stay the revocation of his certificate pending review by the court of his appeal. By order entered August 9, 1989, the Second District Court of Appeals denied the motion to stay the revocation of Respondent's certificate pending appeal of the EPC order.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Lloyd Crossman from the instructional staff of the Pinellas County School system. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K.N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Dr. Scott N. Rose, Supt. Pinellas County Schools 1960 East Druid Road Clearwater, Florida 33546 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Petitioner's charge of discrimination alleges that the Orange County School Board discriminated against her on account of her age and race when the school board dismissed her in July 1994. Although the school board told her that she was dismissed because she did not have a college degree, allegedly another (white) employee without a degree was not dismissed. Petitioner alleges that, in violation of policy, the school board did not assist her to find another position and that since her dismissal younger employees were hired in positions in which she could have worked. The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was discriminated against, as alleged, and if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ada J. Sims is an African-American female born October 28, 1934. She resides in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. During the 1993/94 school year, Ms. Sims was employed as an occupational specialist by the Orange County School Board (OCSB). She was assigned to Cypress Creek High School. Ms. Sims worked for the OCSB for 26 years; the first 4 or 5 were in clerical positions, and the last 22 years were as an occupational specialist at various schools. Ms. Sims does not have a college degree. Sometime during the 1993/94 school year, Ms. Sims was offered and accepted an early retirement opportunity. She expressed her intent to retire effective December 1994. The last day of school was the end of May 1994. At that time Ms. Sims understood that she still had a job at Cypress Creek High School for the beginning of the 1994/95 school year. Sometime during the early summer in 1994, the superintendent of schools and the OCSB realized the need to reduce instructional positions in order to keep expenditures within an available budget. The certification area, "occupational specialist," was identified for the reduction in force. On or about July 19, 1994, Cypress Creek assistant principal Cathy Thompson spoke to Ms. Sims by telephone to inform her that she was no longer employed and that she should call the personnel department for further information. Ms. Sims was upset and called the personnel office. She also visited the office, wrote letters to the school board chairperson and superintendent, and contacted the Classroom Teacher Association. Ms. Sims felt that people were evasive and non-responsive. No one helped her find other employment. Sometime between August and December 1994, Ms. Sims began receiving her retirement benefits. Since then, she has been employed only part-time: briefly for a newspaper and now with Haitian Social Services. In her complaint of discrimination, Ms. Sims is claiming $15,000 in lost wages and $5,000 for "pain and suffering." Mary Bailey is employed by the OCSB Division of Human Resources. A former classroom teacher and principal, she has worked for the OCSB for 33 years. Ms. Bailey was the supervisor for the reduction in force which eliminated Ms. Sims' position. There were approximately 12-15 occupational specialist positions in the OCSB in May 1994. All but 2 or 3 were eliminated. In determining which positions were eliminated the incumbent's job history was reviewed to determine seniority. White and African-American employees were laid off. The only employees retained were those with college degrees who could obtain a teaching certificate and be placed in a regular instructional position. Ms. Sims, without a college degree, did not qualify for this placement. There was no consideration of age or race; the regular OCSB policy and collective bargaining agreement procedures were applied. No one offered Ms. Sims a clerical position or other non-instructional position; she was told she could apply for another position on her own. Elaine Manfriede, the white employee who Ms. Sims claims was retained, found a clerical position on her own. Ms. Manfriede's occupational specialist position was eliminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing Ada J. Sims' charge of discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ronald Blocker Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ada Sims 1601 Crooms Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805 Frank C. Kruppenbacker, Esquire Post Office Box 3471 Orlando, Florida 32801-3471 Dr. Donald Shaw, Orange County Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 271 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 33802-0271
The Issue Whether the School Board of Dade County has cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds that Respondent was "willfully absent from duty without leave," within the meaning of Section 231.44, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed in the instant case? If not, what relief should Respondent be afforded?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Dade County School Board during the 1988-89 school year on an annual contract basis. His employment commenced on August 31,1988. At all times he was assigned to the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) program at Carver Middle School. The principal of Carver Middle School, and Respondent's immediate supervisor, was Samuel Gay. Simine Heise was one of Gay's assistant principals. In Gay's absence, Heise served as acting principal. At around 12:00 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 1989, following a meeting with Gay, Respondent became physically ill at school. He left school for the day after notifying Gay and securing his authorization. Respondent was placed on sick leave for the remainder of the school day. At no time thereafter did Respondent report back to work. Various substitute teachers covered Respondent's classes during the period of his absence. Effective April 20, 1989, he was suspended by the School Board and it initiated action to terminate his employment on the ground that he had been willfully absent without authorization. During the period of his absence, Respondent was under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr. Adolfo M. Vilasuso. He was suffering from depression, insomnia, stress, anxiety and stress- induced gastrointestinal distress. He was treated by Dr. Vilasuso with psychotherapy and medication. Respondent's condition was primarily the result of personal problems involving his son and former wife. He was obsessed by these matters. He paid very little attention to anything else, including his teaching responsibilities. Although he was physically able to report to work, he was so distracted and preoccupied by his personal problems that he could not effectively discharge his teaching duties. The School Board requires that, in order to continue to obtain sick leave, a teacher absent because of illness must contact his immediate supervisor or the supervisor's designee by 2:00 p.m. of each day of absence and give notice that he will be out sick the following day. Teachers are advised of this "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement in the teacher handbook, a copy of which Respondent had received prior to his absence. Throughout the period of his absence, Respondent was capable of understanding and complying with this requirement. A teacher who complies with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement, but has exhausted all of his accrued sick leave credits, will automatically be placed on authorized leave without pay for illness for a maximum of 30 days, without the necessity of formal School Board approval. The leave will be extended beyond 30 days only if the teacher submits an appropriate application for an extension, accompanied by a "statement from [the teacher's] physician explaining why such [extended] leave is necessary." After leaving school on January 30, 1989, Respondent did not contact any member of the Carver Middle School administration or its staff concerning his absence until Saturday, February 11, 1989, when he telephoned Principal Gay's secretary, Maria Bonce, at her home and left a message with her daughter that he would not be at work the following Monday. On February 15, 1989, Dr. Vilasuso telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Assistant Principal Heise. Dr. Vilasuso told Heise that Respondent was under his care. He was vague, however, regarding the nature of Respondent's illness and he did not indicate when Respondent would be able to return to work. On February 21, 1989, not having heard anything further from either Respondent or Dr. Vilasuso, Principal Gay sent Respondent the following letter: The purpose of this communication is to determine your intentions for the balance of this school term. You've been absent from your teaching position at Carver Middle School since 12:00 a.m [sic] on January 30, 1989. On Saturday, February 11, you called my secretary, Mrs. Bonce, indicating you would return to work next week. On February 15, an individual identifying himself as your doctor called Carver Middle School and spoke to the assistant principal, Mrs. Heise. When he was requested [to provide information] about your illness, medical status and your ability to return to work, he stated he would not give further information without your approval. Until now we have not heard from you since February 11 when you contacted Mrs. Bonce at home. Also, the phone number and address we have on record obviously are no longer yours, therefore, I am unable to ccntact you. In addition to the above, we have no lesson plans, roll books, grade books for your students. It has been reported to me by custodial staff that you are frequently observed in the building after duty hours yet you have failed to communicate with me personally or the assistant principal or speak with your department head or the assistant principal for curriculum. I must call your attention to the contract between Dade County Public Schools and UTD and the teacher handbook which has information whiih addresses teachers' absences. You are clearly in violation of these documents. Finally, may I remind you of a memorandum given to you on January 27. A written response was due to me on February 1st. In addition, a conversation for the record was scheduled for February 1st. That conference will be held. You simply need to tell me when. I must remind you that failure to comply with district and local rules can result in non-reappointment for the 1989-90 school year. After receiving the letter, Respondent, on Thursday, February 23, 1989, telephoned Carver Middle School and spoke with Gay. Although he did not indicate to Gay when he was going to return to school, he did leave Gay with the impression that his condition was improving. Respondent also intimated during the telephone conversation that Gay would be receiving a letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's illness. The following Monday, February 27, 1989, at around 9:00 p.m., Respondent telephoned Secretary Bonce at her home and told her that he would be absent from school the remainder of the week due to illness. On Wednesday, March 8, 1989 Respordent telephoned Gay at school. He told Gay that he wanted to apply for sick leave and asked how he would go about doing so. Gay responded that he had referred Respondent's case to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards and that therefore the matter was "out of his hands" and Respondent would have to contact that office. On no occasion other than during the foregoing telephone conversations of February 11, 23 and 27, 1989, and March 8, 1989, did Respondent communicate with Gay or any member of Gay's administrative staff concerning his absence. Respondent's failure to so communicate with either his immediate supervisor or anyone on his immediate supervisor's administrative staff was willful. On March 28, 1989, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, the head of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, sent Respondent a letter, which provided in pertinent part as follows: The Office of Professional Standards has been advised that you have been absent without authority from your duties as an employee in the Dade County Public Schools. During this period you did not obtain authorized leave from your supervisor. Florida Statute 231.44 provides: Any District school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Your absence without authorized leave constitutes willful neglect of duty and subjects your employment with the Dade County Schools to immediate termination. Please be advised that unless you provide within five days from receipt of this letter a written notification to the Office of Professional Standards, 1444 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 215, Miami, FL 33132, of your resolution of your unauthorized leave status, your termination will be submitted to the School Board for final action at its meeting of April 19, 1989. Respondent received Dr. Annunziata's letter on April 10, 1989. He did not provide the Office of Professional Standards with the requisite "written notification" within five days of his receipt of the letter. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the School Board at its April 19, 1989, meeting. Thereafter, Respondent submitted to the Office of Professional Standards a written request for leave without pay for illness. The request sought leave for the period from February 8, 1989, through June 19, 1989. Although the form on which Respondent made his request noted that a "[d]octor's statement indicating diagnosis [and] length of time required for leave" was required, no such statement accompanied Respondent's request. A letter from Dr. Vilasuso concerning Respondent's condition was subsequently received by the Office of Professional Standards on April 28, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as an annual contract teacher pursuant to Section 231.44, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of January, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3231 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: School Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. First, second and third sentences: Rejected because they add only unnecessary detail; Fourth and fifth sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: To the extent that it suggests that Respondent "never" complied with the "2:00 pm. notification requirement," it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Second sentence: Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that Respondent was absent without authorization during a portion of the period from January 30, 1989, to April 19, 1989, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that it suggests that he was absent without authorization during the entire period, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it is irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected because it adds only unnecessary detail. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Rejected because it is a summary of rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Rejected because it is a summary of testimony, rather than a finding of fact based upon such testimony. Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact; Remaining sentences: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent it suggests that a teacher need not comply with the "2:00 p.m. notification" requirement to obtain authorized leave for illness and that Respondent was on such authorized leave during the first 30 days of his absence. Otherwise, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33134 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
