The Issue Whether the employment of Petitioner, Cornelius B. Frankliln, was improperly terminated by Respondent, The School Board of Seminole County, in the summer of 1988.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, C.B. Franklin, began service with the School Board of Seminole County in the position of teacher in the 1951-52 academic year. In 1955, Petitioner was awarded a continuing contract of employment by Respondent in the position of teacher. Said continuing contract was in effect at all times relevant hereto. Petitioner was last employed by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida, as an Assistant Principal II at Sanford Middle School on an annual contract of employment, which terminated of June 10, 1989. During his employment at Sanford Middle School as an assistant principal from 1980 through 1988, Petitioner received satisfactory annual evaluations. In March, 1988, Owen McCarron, Assistant Superintendent, applied a "staffing formula" for each school in Seminole County. The staffing formula is not a school board rule but is a formula that the school board approves based upon student population to determine the number of teachers, secretaries, assistant principals, and others needed at each specific school. Mr. McCarron is responsible for the application of the formula. The application of the formula is not submitted to the school board for approval. Mr. McCarron made a mistake in the preparation of the staffing formula for 1988/89. The mistake made was that the number of assistant principals for Sanford Middle School would be reduced from two to one. Having been informed of a reduction, Dan Pelham, Principal, Sanford Middle School, determined that he would have to choose among the Assistant Principal II's employed and decided not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner. Owen McCarron discovered the mistake and notified Dan Pelham, sometime in late March, 1989. However, Dan Pelham chose not to recommend the continued employment of Petitioner but rather to advertise the position as being vacant. When Mr. Pelham was notified the position was reinstated he considered it to be an "opportunity" to consider alternative persons for the position. Mr. Pelham's decision was based on Petitioner's performance as reflected by his annual evaluations and faculty input. Mr. Pelham held a conference with Petitioner on April 8, 1988, and Petitioner was advised that his contract as an assistant principal at Sanford Middle School would not be renewed for the school year 1988-89, because the School Board had reduced the number of assistant principal positions at Sanford Middle School from two (2) positions to one (1). Petitioner was offered a teaching position, under his continuing contract status, at Sanford Middle School as a peer counselor. The Respondent did not act to approve the reduction in positions, nor was the Respondent notified that Petitioner was not being recommended for reemployment. The School Board does not have a rule to govern how the decision is to be made upon a reduction in staff. At the time of the hearing and at all relevant times prior thereto, Petitioner held a valid Florida Department of Education certification in the teaching fields of health education, physical education and supervision and administration. On or about June 9, 1989, one day prior to the expiration of Petitioner's contract as Assistant Principal II, the Petitioner met with Dan Pelham and John Reichert, Director of Personnel. At that time, Petitioner was again advised by Mr. Pelham that he had not changed his decision not to renew Petitioner as an assistant principal, even though he had been advised that the position had been restored. The Petitioner was advised that he could apply for the vacant Assistant Principal II position but he would have to submit an application and a resume. The Petitioner responded that Dan Pelham was well aware of his qualifications, and that a copy of his resume was on file. At that time, Mr. Pelham offered Petitioner the peer counselor position, but salary was not discussed. Petitioner was given copies of documents containing the job information for the position of peer counselor. The position had not previously existed and had not been advertised. Petitioner was reassured that he had employment with the School Board as a teacher under his continuing contract status. At the same meeting, Mr. Reichert advised Petitioner to accept the teaching position, and at the same time apply for the assistant principal vacancy at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner applied for state retirement on June 27, 1988, and his retirement was accepted by the School Board of Seminole County thereafter, on July 13, 1988. Prior to the time Petitioner submitted his application for retirement, he was verbally offered a teaching position under his continuing contract status for the 1988-89 school year at Sanford Middle School. Petitioner is an experienced school administrator, holds a master's degree in [school] administration and supervision from Rollins College, in Winter Park, Florida. As a component of his master's degree requirement he had instruction in school law. Petitioner was aware that his employment as an assistant principal was on the basis of an annual contract of employment and that the position was not entitled to continuing contract status. Petitioner did not apply for the position of Assistant Principal II (secondary) at Sanford Middle School, after it was declared vacant and advertised (in the Spring of 1988), even though he was told that he would be considered for reappointment to the position if he did. Petitioner was aware that if he accepted the offered position of peer counselor his pay would resume in the Fall of 1988, along with all of the other teachers, and that he would be paid at the top of the teaching salary scale on the basis of his thirty (30) plus years of service. Petitioner did not respond, verbally or in writing, to the offered position of peer counselor subsequent to its offer and prior to his retirement. Mr. L. David Pelham, the principal of Sanford Middle School, was not obligated to reappoint Petitioner to the position of assistant principal, after June 10, 1988. However, Petitioner was entiled to a performance assessment prior to that date. Mr. Pelham recognized that Petitioner held continuing contract status and was entitled to be placed in a teaching position at Sanford Middle School for the 1988-89 school year and thereafter. Petitioner never discussed his decision to retire with Mr. Reichert or Mr. Pelham. Neither person had any communications with Petitioner after the June 9, 1988 meeting. Petitioner's annual contract of employment clearly put him on notice that neither he nor the school board owed the other any further contractual obligation after June 9, 1988 and that he had no expectancy of employment as an assistant principal after June 10, 1988.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the affirmative relief sought by the Petitioner should be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that each party should bear their own costs and attorneys fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2007 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1 (1st three sentences), 2, 3, 4 (1st sentence), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (except the last 2 sentences) - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 4 (2d sentence), 9,12 - Rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11 (except sentence 2)-Rejected as subservient. Respondents Findings of Fact Paragraph 1 through 26 - Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert E. Hughes Superintendent of Schools c/o Seminole County School Board 1211 Melonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 John D. Carlson, Esquire Gatlin, Woods, Carlson & Cowdery 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Julian, Colbert, Whigham & Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32772-1330 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues presented are: (1) the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to which Petitioner School Board of Brevard County (School Board) is entitled as the prevailing party in the underlying matter, DOAH Case No. 19-6424 (underlying matter); and (2) whether sanctions are warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Underlying Matter The underlying matter concerned whether Legacy’s school charter for the Legacy Academy Charter School should be terminated for the reasons set forth in the School Board’s November 20, 2019, 90-Day Notice of Proposed Termination of Charter, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(b). The Division received the Petition for Administrative Hearing on December 5, 2019, and provided notice to the parties that this underlying matter was before the Division on December 9, 2019. The Division assigned the undersigned ALJ to the underlying matter. After conducting a telephonic pre-hearing conference on December 13, 2019, the undersigned scheduled the final hearing in this matter for a four- day live hearing, March 2 through 4, and 6, 2020, in Titusville, Florida. Section 1002.33(8)(b) provides that “[t]he hearing shall be conducted within 90 days after receipt of the request for a hearing and in accordance with chapter 120.” The parties have attempted to make an issue of the initial scheduling of the final hearing in this matter—and in particular, Legacy has contended that scheduling this hearing outside of a 45-day period provided in the First Amended Charter between the School Board and Legacy (Amended Charter), executed September 11, 2018, caused unnecessary expense on the School Board’s behalf—but the undersigned, with the agreement of the parties at the December 13, 2019, telephonic pre-hearing conference, scheduled a final hearing in this matter that complied with the section 1002.33(8)(b) requirement that the hearing be conducted within 90 days. The School Board immediately thereafter began engaging in discovery to which Legacy did not timely respond. On February 12, 2020, Legacy filed its first “Opposed Motion to Continue with Good Cause,” which requested a continuance of the final hearing because of health issues confronting Legacy’s interim principal and intended client representative, Charlene Montford, in North Carolina. Additionally, on February 12, 2020, the School Board filed a Motion to Compel Depositions and Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Continue, where it argued that it had not had the opportunity to depose Ms. Montford and another Legacy board member. The undersigned conducted a telephonic hearing on this motion on February 18, 2020, and entered an Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Continue and Requiring Joint Status Update that same date. The parties filed a Joint Status Report on February 20, 2020, and reported that the parties could not agree on dates for depositions of Ms. Montford and the board member, and requested another hearing on this issue. Then, on February 21, 2020, Legacy filed a Motion to Reconsider Denial of Continuance, which provided additional details about Ms. Montford’s health issues and medical appointments in North Carolina. The undersigned conducted a telephonic status conference on February 21, 2020, and on February 26, 2020, entered an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Continue, Rescheduling Hearing and Requiring Status Conferences, in which the undersigned determined that Legacy had established good cause for a continuance of the final hearing, and rescheduled it for May 18 through 21, 2020, in Titusville. The School Board, on February 28, 2020, filed motions to compel. On March 10, 2020, the undersigned entered an Order that granted in part, these motions to compel, and provided Legacy with additional time to respond to pending discovery. On March 12, 2020, the School Board filed a Notice of Production from Non-Party, which Legacy opposed in a response filed March 25, 2020. Additionally, Legacy filed an Emergency Opposed Motion of Continuance and Emergency Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery on March 20, 2020, which requested a continuance of the final hearing and an extension of discovery due to the impacts of COVID-19. On March 20, 2020, the undersigned entered an Order requesting that the parties be prepared to discuss, at a March 27, 2020, telephonic status conference, any critical deadlines that may be relevant to the consideration of a continuance. On March 26, 2020, a day before the first of two previously-scheduled pre-hearing telephonic status conferences, the parties filed the following pleadings: Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Emergency Motion for Continuance and Emergency Opposed Motion to Extend Discovery; Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Order Compelling Discovery; Respondent’s Motion for Protective Order; and Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Order Compelling Discovery and Request for Fees. After the telephonic status conference on March 27, 2020, the undersigned entered, on March 30, 2020, an Order on Pending Pleadings, which: (a) denied Legacy’s request to continue the final hearing; (b) granted Legacy an extension (until April 13, 2020) to respond to all outstanding discovery; (c) denied the School Board’s motion for sanctions; and (d) directed the parties to mutually agree to schedule the deposition of Legacy’s corporate representative. Additionally, on March 27, 2020, the undersigned entered an Order on Petitioner’s Notice of Production from Non-Party, which overruled Legacy’s objections to the documents that the School Board sought from non-parties, and allowed the School Board to serve the subpoenas attached to its Notice of Production from Non-Party. On April 6, 2020, Legacy filed a Motion for [sic] Limine and Motion to Strike, which argued that the undersigned should not consider evidence of, or should strike grounds or allegations, relating to two categories: (1) evidence, including all underlying financial information, concerning Legacy’s alleged “deteriorating financial condition,” because jurisdiction for deciding how to proceed when a charter school experiences a “deteriorating financial condition” lies with the Florida Department of Education, pursuant to section 1002.345; and (2) evidence or grounds for termination that predate the Amended Charter, including allegations contained in a previous termination proceeding (DOAH Case No. 18-2778) that resulted in Legacy withdrawing its request for a final hearing. The School Board opposed Legacy’s motion in two separate pleadings. On April 23, 2020, the School Board filed a Motion to Compel Respondent’s Production in Response to Petitioner’s Request to Produce, and on April 24, 2020, filed a Motion to Compel Respondent’s Answers to Petitioner’s Interrogatories. On April 24, 2020, the undersigned conducted the second of two pre- hearing telephonic status conferences. On April 29, 2020, the undersigned entered an Order Denying Respondent’s Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike. Additionally, the undersigned issued an Amended Notice of Hearing, which moved the hearing in the underlying matter to the Zoom web- conference platform, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 1, 2020, Legacy filed: (1) Response to Motion to Compel Respondent’s Second Amended Response to Interrogatories (Unverified due to COVID-19); (2) Response to School Board’s Motion to Compel Additional Production; and (3) Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion for [sic] Limine and Motion to Strike Evidence and Grounds for Termination Based Upon Financial Information. Also on May 1, 2020, the School Board filed an Opposition to Legacy’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike Evidence and Grounds for Termination Based Upon Financial Termination. On May 4, 2020, the undersigned issued an Order Denying Motion to Reconsider, as well as an Order Granting Motions to Compel. The Order Granting Motions to Compel ordered Legacy to provide verified answers to its second amended responses no later than May 8, 2020, and that if Legacy failed to provide responsive answers to those interrogatories, the undersigned would consider, at the final hearing, whether such failure should result in the imposition of sanctions. The Order Granting Motions to Compel also ordered Legacy to provide all responsive documents requested no later than May 8, 2020, and that if it failed to provide responsive, non-privileged documents as ordered, the undersigned would consider, at the final hearing, whether such failure should result in the imposition of sanctions. On May 11, 2020, Legacy filed a Motion to Compel Production. Thereafter, on May 14, 2020, the School Board filed a Renewed Motion for Sanctions, noting that Legacy did not submit its answers to interrogatories or responsive documents until May 11, 2020—after the deadline imposed in the May 4, 2020, Order Granting Motions to Compel. Although originally scheduled for four days (May 18 through 21, 2020), the final hearing in the underlying matter actually lasted six days, from May 18 through 22, and 26, 2020. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the School Board informed the undersigned that Legacy failed to timely provide witness and exhibit lists, and then filed an amended exhibit list (after filing its untimely exhibit list) that included additional exhibits. During counsel’s arguments on this issue, it became apparent that Legacy’s amended exhibit list contained not only untimely and previously-undisclosed exhibits, but also exhibits that contained material that Legacy did not provide during discovery. The undersigned excluded from evidence the undisclosed exhibits. As noted previously, the undersigned entered a Final Order in the underlying matter on August 18, 2020, that concluded that the School Board met its burden, by clear and convincing evidence, that it may terminate the Amended Charter. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs As the preceding paragraphs demonstrate, the parties engaged in vigorous pre-hearing motion practice, finding little agreement on even minor issues both before and during the final hearing. As additional context to the parties’ disinclination to cooperate during the underlying matter, each party filed its own pre-hearing stipulation. And, in a continuation of the spirit of non-cooperation, the parties filed separate pre-hearing stipulations in the instant matter. At the outset of the hearing in this case, and with the absence of a joint pre-hearing stipulation, the undersigned conciliated agreement on one of the taxable costs in this matter: Legacy agreed that it did not contest the School Board’s taxable cost for its expert witness in auditing (Laura Manlove) of $15,000.2 Petitioner’s Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs details both the attorneys’ fees and costs that the School Board seeks in this matter. With respect to attorneys’ fees, it avers that the hourly rate actually billed by counsel was $200 for partners and associates. The affidavit includes the detailed billing records of the School Board’s Orlando-based law firm of record—Garganese, Weiss, D’Agresta & Salzman, P.A. (GWDS)—and the attorneys who worked on this matter. The summary of total attorneys’ fees requested is: Attorney Hours Rate Total Fees Debra S. Babb-Nutcher 728.30 $200.00 $145,660.00 Suzanne D’Agresta 1.50 $200.00 $300.00 Kate T. Hollis 776.40 $200.00 $153,000.00 Total: 1,506.20 $200.00 $298,960.00 At the November 6, 2020, final hearing, the School Board’s expert on attorneys’ fees, Nicholas A. Shannin, Esquire, testified to the reasonableness of the hours that the GWDS attorneys expended in this matter. Mr. Shannin has practiced law for 25 years, is board-certified in appellate practice, is the past President of the Orange County Bar Association, has previously represented governmental entities in litigation matters, and has been previously qualified in various courts and tribunals as an expert on attorneys’ fees. Mr. Shannin opined that the number of hours that the GWDS attorneys expended in this matter (1,506.20) was “reasonable, related, and necessary” in the “prosecution” of this case. He further opined that the hourly 2 The School Board presented the expert witness testimony of four other experts, who were also Brevard County School District employees and fact witnesses, during the underlying matter. The School Board does not seek to recover any expert witness costs for these other expert witnesses. rate of $200 for GWDS partners and associates was “incredibly reasonable,” and that, in fact, he felt $250-$350 per hour, for a government client, would be a more appropriate range. Mr. Shannin testified that, in his opinion, the foregoing totals (of fees and costs) are reasonable in light of the factors enumerated in the Rules of Professional Conduct, found in rule 4-1.5, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, as well as Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990). Mr. Shannin noted the time and labor required, novelty, and skills needed in this matter as factors in the reasonableness of the fees, as the GWDS attorneys expended over 1,500 hours in approximately nine months of litigation, where much was fought or contested, and since charter termination matters do not have a “well-worn path” of past precedent to guide parties. He also noted that Ms. Babb-Nutcher and Ms. Hollis likely were precluded from other employment during the pendency of this matter. Mr. Shannin stated that the rate was reasonable, that the results were absolute, and that this matter was significant, noting that it involved “public policy matters at the highest level.” Legacy disputed the reasonableness of the School Board’s requested fees on several grounds: (a) the School Board failed to assert the 45-day hearing requirement in the Amended Charter, thus, prolonging this matter and adding additional fees that the undersigned should not award; (b) the use of “block billing” is an improper billing practice that makes it difficult to determine the reasonableness of the requested fees; and (c) because the undersigned found that the School Board failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the five asserted grounds for termination, the undersigned should reduce the amount of fees awarded by 20 percent. With regard to the 45-day hearing requirement in the Amended Charter, as previously discussed, the undersigned, with the agreement of the parties at the December 13, 2019, telephonic pre-hearing conference, scheduled a final hearing in this matter that complied with the section 1002.33(8)(b)’s requirement that the hearing be conducted within 90 days. Respondent made no contemporaneous objection to the hearing being scheduled within the 90-day statutory timeframe. And, as detailed in paragraphs 5-15 above, Respondent requested (and received) continuances of the final hearing, and, unfortunately, COVID-19 played a part in the process. The undersigned does not find that the School Board’s behavior in the underlying matter caused an unreasonable delay that resulted in an unreasonable or unnecessary expenditure in attorneys’ fees. With regard to “block billing,” which is the practice of including multiple tasks within a single billing entry,3 Legacy provided two examples of GWDS billing entries that undoubtedly fall within this definition, one of which was: Date Description Hours Amount Lawyer 4/6/20 Review latest ESE report for trial; prepare outline of ESE issues in preparation for trial; review Legacy’s “Motion for Limine” to prohibit evidence of financial issues, and to prohibit prior issues; e-mail exchange with S. Archer regarding depositions and DOE letter; review information regarding R. Moreno; strategize regarding effect of DOE process for corrective action plan and relevance to termination process; e-mails with S. Archer regarding same; review Building Hope corporate information; legal research regarding basis for Motion in Limine in DOAH cases; e-mails with C. Norwood regarding 7.20 1,440.00 DSB 3 See Kearney v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 1377-78 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (defining block billing as the practice of including “multiple tasks in a single time entry.”); Wise v. Kelly, 620 F. Supp. 2d 435, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Block billing is the practice of aggregating multiple tasks into one billing entry.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Bobrow Palumbo Sales, Inc. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 549 F. Supp. 2d 274, 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (“A reduction is also warranted where counsel engages in ‘block billing,’ such that multiple tasks are aggregated into one billing entry.”). deposition schedule; e-mail exchange with C. Norwood regarding false statements in Motion and contradictions; review replies; prepare draft notices of depositions with tentative dates; e-mail to C. Norwood requesting home addresses. 4/6/20 Exchange e-mails with S. Archer regarding financial statements and analysis/comparison; research regarding Building Hope and proposed representative for deposition; prepare memorandum and deposition notes regarding same; continued review of financial reports and update comparison spreadsheet with revenue from profit & loss information attached to December 10, 2020, Legacy board meeting minutes; review file and documents provided at March 31, 2020, meeting, prepare for April 7, 2020, meeting. 4.50 900.00 KTH The vast majority of the entries in the GWDS billing records are block entries. Although Mr. Shannin testified that these entries reflected each day being separated, with each entry containing sufficient detail as to the tasks completed, the undersigned finds that including multiple tasks within a single billing entity makes it difficult to assess the reasonableness of the totals on an hour-by-hour basis.4 The undersigned credits much of Mr. Shannin’s testimony as to the reasonableness of the hourly fee, as well as many of rule 4-1.5’s factors that 4 Legacy also introduced into evidence some of the billing records relied on in Lincoln Memorial Academy, which reflected that Manatee County School Board’s outside attorneys did not engage in block billing, at least during the attorneys’ fees phase of that matter. ALJ Robert Cohen found that these attorneys “maintained detailed records of all services rendered as evidence of the extensive time and effort dedicated to this matter.” F.O. at 6. Additionally, ALJ Cohen found that the respondent “did not dispute or otherwise offer any evidence disputing the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged[.]” F.O. at 11. he relied on to opine as to the reasonableness of claimed fees in this matter. However, though Mr. Shannin’s testimony as to the reasonableness of the hours devoted to this matter was credible and is generally accepted, due to the pervasiveness of the block entries, the undersigned is unable to perform an independent reasonableness assessment on an hour-by-hour basis. As an alternative approach, the undersigned shall apply an across-the-board percentage cut of 10 percent to the total hours of the GWDS attorneys, recognizing that its hourly rate of $200 per hour is reasonable. Such a reduction yields the following totals: Attorney Hours Rate Total Fees Debra S. Babb-Nutcher 655.47 $200.00 $131,094.00 Suzanne D’Agresta 1.35 $200.00 $270.00 Kate T. Hollis 698.76 $200.00 $139,752.00 Revised Total: 1,355.81 $200.00 $271,162.00 As to Legacy’s contention that the undersigned should reduce fees by 20 percent to reflect Legacy prevailing on four of the five bases for termination in the underlying matter, the undersigned finds that Legacy “prevailed” in the underlying matter, and is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, as prescribed in section 1002.33(8)(b). Turning to costs, the School Board’s Motion to Tax Costs, which detailed various costs incurred in the underlying matter, and the Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which additionally provided supporting documentation for these costs, requests the following recoverable costs: Cost Amount Deposition Transcripts $5,282.55 Final Hearing Transcripts $15,501.50 Copy Costs $1,201.75 Trial Expert Witness Costs (Manlove) $15,000.00 Total: $36,985.80 At the final hearing, Mr. Shannin testified that his agreed hourly fee for providing expert testimony was $400 per hour. He further testified that he spent 10 hours in total (nine hours or preparation, and one hour for testimony at the final hearing), and expected to submit an invoice to the School Board for $4,000.00. The undersigned finds that this fee is an additional recoverable cost for the School Board. The undersigned finds that the foregoing expenditures total $40,985.80 in taxable costs, and shall be recoverable by the School Board, as prescribed in section 1002.33(8)(b). Sanctions As detailed in paragraphs 5-14 above, the School Board filed multiple motions to compel, for Legacy’s failure to timely and properly respond to the School Board’s discovery requests. The undersigned entered multiple Orders concerning these motions, the latest being a May 4, 2020, Order Granting Motions to Compel, which ordered Legacy to provide verified answers to its second amended responses to interrogatories no later than May 8, 2020, and that if Legacy failed to provide responsive answers to those interrogatories, the undersigned would consider, at the final hearing, whether such failure should result in the imposition of sanctions. The Order Granting Motions to Compel also ordered Legacy to provide all responsive documents requested no later than May 8, 2020, and that if it failed to provide responsive, non- privileged documents as ordered, the undersigned would consider, at the final hearing, whether such failure should result in the imposition of sanctions. Legacy actually e-filed its responsive answers to interrogatories and documents with the Division on May 9, 2020, which was a Saturday, and the School Board did not receive them until Monday, May 11, 2020, through the Division’s e-filing system. Legacy’s qualified representative and attorney did not attempt to timely provide these remaining responsive answers and documents utilizing methods other than the Division’s e-filing system. In essence, to respond to the School Board’s discovery (interrogatories and requests for production) served on January 20, 2020, it took multiple extensions, motions to compel, hearings on motions to compel, Orders on motions to compel, and, ultimately, the May 4, 2020, Order Granting Motions to Compel, to get Legacy to provide full responses, which even then ran afoul of the deadline provided in that May 4, 2020, Order Granting Motions to Compel. At the final hearing in the underlying matter, the undersigned excluded from evidence documents that were not provided pursuant to the May 4, 2020, Order Granting Motions to Compel. Significantly, the undersigned excluded progress monitoring reports related to ESE students, because the School Board requested these progress monitoring reports during discovery, but Legacy failed to produce them. Although the School Board provided clear and convincing evidence that Legacy failed to provide significant compensatory education service minutes to its students, the undersigned also found: Although [Legacy ESE teacher Jamie Luna’s] testimony that Legacy has completed regular and compensatory ESE services for the 2019-2020 school year was persuasive, it is not clear, because of the lack of admissible progress monitoring reports, that Legacy’s ESE students received the services required under their IEPs. F.O. at 33. The School Board requests additional monetary sanctions against Legacy, its Qualified Representative, and its counsel of record, for its conduct in failing to respond to discovery and the undersigned’s Orders. Legacy argues that sanctions are not warranted because Ms. Montford, its corporate representative, interim principal, and “designee” of the Governing Board to facilitate discovery requests, was diagnosed with serious, documented health issues during the pendency of this matter, which required immediate treatment by healthcare providers in North Carolina, and these serious health issues should be considered in understanding any delays in discovery. The undersigned previously found, in the underlying matter, that Ms. Montford’s serious health issues constituted good cause for a continuance of the final hearing. Legacy also argues that the COVID-19 pandemic further complicated its ability to respond to the School Board’s discovery. Legacy’s Qualified Representative, Mr. Norwood, contends that any discovery delays were beyond his control, and were the responsibility of Legacy, not him. Legacy’s counsel of record, Mr. Clark, who did not appear at the final hearing or at the final hearing in the underlying matter, but whose signature appears on Legacy’s pleadings, did not make any argument in Legacy’s Proposed Final Order, but would presumably similarly contend that any discovery issues were beyond his control. The undersigned finds that Legacy’s failure to timely provide discovery, after numerous motions to compel and Orders from the undersigned, warranted the imposition of sanctions at the final hearing in the underlying matter, in the form of the exclusion of evidence Legacy wished to introduce. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(4)(b)(2)(B). The undersigned declines to impose additional sanctions.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002, on the basis of his employment with Florida Community College at Jacksonville (FCCJ).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Burns, has been employed as an adjunct instructor of FCCJ since March 1989. FCCJ is a member employer under FRS. Adjunct instructors traditionally have been employed by FCCJ on a class-by-class, semester-by-semester basis, and have no expectation of employment beyond any single semester. Petitioner knew this from his date of first hire. When Petitioner began work with FCCJ, all adjunct instructors were given a contract for each term and each course. This practice continued for all instructors and classes until the year 2000. Despite the semester-to-semester, repetitive contracts, occasionally Petitioner's courses were of a duration longer than one semester, and Petitioner was sometimes evaluated only on an annual basis. These evaluations were for purposes of certifying Petitioner and similarly situated adjunct instructional personnel for further semester contracts. At all times material, Petitioner taught on three campuses and taught college courses in biology and earth science; acted as a facilitator in the laboratory; and taught Adult Studies courses. At all times material, sixty percent of Petitioner's time was spent teaching Adult Studies courses. From 1989 until January 1, 2000, Petitioner was provided semester contracts for each of the three foregoing functions: college courses, lab facilitation, and Adult Studies courses. Every contract clearly acknowledged, in pertinent part, 3. This contract shall at all times be subject to any and all laws, Florida State Board of Education Rules and Florida Community College at Jacksonville Board of Trustees rules and regulations now existing or hereinafter lawfully enacted or promulgated. In furtherance thereof, the Contractor expressly agrees to become aware of and comply with all such applicable regulations, including but not limited to those addressing discrimination/affirmative action and sexual harassment. * * * The Contractor agrees and understands that he/she is not entitled to receive benefits made available by the College to its full-time employees. The Contractor further agrees and understands that his/her services are of a temporary nature, and that the College does not agree to provide the Contractor with any future employment or contract whether temporary, permanent or otherwise. The relationship hereby created between the Contractor and the College shall be deemed to have been voluntarily terminated by the Contractor upon the termination or expiration of this agreement. The Contractor agrees and understands that the compensation described herein is the entire compensation due to Contractor for performance of services pursuant to this contract. Specifically, Contractor agrees and understands that he/she shall not be entitled to wages or hours similar to those provided to College employees. * * * 9. The Contractor and the College understand and hereby agree that this contract does not and shall not be deemed to create an employment relationship. From January 1, 2000, through June 2002, Petitioner was not provided individual contracts for his Adult Studies classes, but was provided contracts for his other courses and lab facilitation work. In 2000, FCCJ began implementing a new computer system and, as a result, some adjunct instructors were not given individual contracts for each course. Adult Studies was one program area where time cards, rather than individual contracts, were used. No one at FCCJ ever told Petitioner that he had become a full or part-time employee, as opposed to an adjunct instructor. At various times during the period after January 1, 2000, Petitioner and other adjunct instructors approached Dean of Adult Studies, Lloyd Watkins, and asked him where their contracts were. The Dean inquired of FCCJ's Human Resources Department and was told there were too many contracts to do and so they would not be issued. It is not certain that Dean Watkins ever conveyed this information to Petitioner. However, throughout the period at issue, Petitioner used the time cards and understood that his employment was on a class by class, semester by semester basis. The issue of FRS benefits vis-á-vis independent contractor status did not arise until after Petitioner had been terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to participate in FRS from January 1, 2000, through June 13, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Al Millar, Esquire 4627 Ocean Street Mayport, Florida 32233 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street, Building C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Simone Marstiller, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact The hearing officer's findings of fact are hereby approved and adopted. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the the hearing officer's findings of fact. Petitioner takes his vacation between school board meetings or by asking the school board to be excused from attending said meetings. No leave time is actually used for such absences. (Petitioner's Exhibit O) Prior to 1979 the Division had not determined Cooney was an employee being paid from a regular salaries account who was eligible for FRS membership. His actual position and employment status was not questioned until 1980. Following an extensive review of Cooney's position, which had not changed since 1965, the Division determined Cooney was not eligible for FRS membership because he was not filling a regularly, established position. The 1979 rule changes defined "regularly established position", but did not redefine employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order declaring Richard W. Cooney eligible for membership in the Florida Retirement System both before and after July 1, 1979. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1984.
The Issue Whether the School Board lacked the delegated legislative authority to promulgate School Board Policy 2.57. Whether the challenged portions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate certain provisions of the charter school statute, section 1002.33, Florida Statutes, and State Board Rules, as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge Petitions. Whether the Innovative Rubric Policy 2.57 should be invalidated for enlarging, modifying, and/or contravening the charter statute and also the adopted State Board Education rule(s) and form(s). Whether the budget worksheet referenced in School Board Policy 2.57 is an unadopted rule because it was not attached or incorporated into School Board Policy 2.57 and/or was never specifically adopted by rule. Whether certain provisions of School Board Policy 2.57 violate section 1002.33(6)(h) as outlined in Petitioner's Amended Rule Challenge and Charter Petitions. Whether the prevailing party is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to section 1002.33(6)(h) and/or section 120.595, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Renaissance is a not-for-profit Florida corporation. Renaissance currently operates six charter schools in the School District of Palm Beach County ("School District") pursuant to charters issued by the School Board: (1) Renaissance Charter School at Central Palm; (2) Renaissance Charter School at Cypress; (3) Renaissance Charter School at Palms West; (4) Renaissance Charter School at Summit; (5) Renaissance Charter School at Wellington; and (6) Renaissance Charter School at West Palm Beach. The School Board is the "sponsor" of the six schools operated by Renaissance in the School District for purposes of section 1002.33. The six schools operated by Renaissance are public schools, by virtue of their status as charter schools, under section 1002.33(1). Charter Schools USA serves as the education services provider or management company for all six of Renaissance's schools in the School District. On April 1, 2015, the School Board held a public workshop on the subject of charter schools, including proposed revisions to School Board Policy 2.57 ("Policy 2.57") entitled "Charter Schools." After the workshop, the School Board reviewed proposed revisions to the rule, Policy 2.57, at a noticed public meeting on April 22, 2015, and approved development of the policy. On May 27, 2015, at a noticed public meeting, the School Board approved adoption of revised Policy 2.57. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 required, among other things, that charter schools meet a standard beyond the status quo for "innovative learning methods," mandated that every charter contract contain a provision requiring 51 percent of the charter school governing board members to reside within Palm Beach County, and mandated that every charter contract contain a provision precluding new charter schools from being located in the vicinity of a district-operated school that has the same grade levels and programs. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also included an attached Innovative Policy Rubric 2.57, which contained the innovative definition and additional standards of innovation which charter school applicants must satisfy. The May 27, 2015, amendments to Policy 2.57 also required a completed budget worksheet in the format prescribed by the School Board from each charter school applicant. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 is the "Budget Template Tool" developed by the Florida Charter Support Unit. The "budget worksheet" referenced in Policy 2.57 was not specifically identified in Policy 2.57 or attached thereto when it was adopted. The School District requires use of the Budget Template Tool in order to provide charter school applicants notice about everything that is required to prepare a budget and to ensure that the budget includes all necessary information. Charter school applicants who do not use the Budget Template Tool often fail to provide all of the information required to be included in the budget. The School District will review an applicant's budget even if it is not submitted using the Budget Template Tool. Failure to use the Budget Template Tool, in and of itself, will not be a factor in the rating of the "Budget" section of an application or the overall recommendation on an application. On August 3, 2015, Renaissance submitted its application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach to the District's Charter Schools Department. The application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach is the only charter application Renaissance has filed in the School District since the revised Policy 2.57 was adopted on May 27, 2015. On or around August 18, 2015, Renaissance requested that the Florida Department of Education ("FDOE") mediate its dispute over the amendments to Policy 2.57. The School Board declined FDOE's request to mediate the dispute. On September 8, 2015, Commissioner of Education Pam Stewart issued a letter to both Renaissance and the School Board confirming that the dispute could not be settled through mediation and providing Renaissance with permission to bring its dispute to DOAH. The District Superintendent recommended that the application for Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach be denied and placed it on the consent agenda for the School Board's November 4, 2015, public meeting, with one of the reasons being that the application "failed to meet indicators of School Board Policy 2.57 innovative rubric." At the November 4, 2015, meeting, after deliberation, the School Board voted to deny the application. In its letter dated November 13, 2015, denying the charter application of the proposed Renaissance Charter High School of Palm Beach, the School Board relied, in part, on Policy 2.57 as grounds for denial. On September 7, 2016, Petitioner filed a consolidated challenge that was amended on December 20, 2016. Petitioner is challenging the School Board's adoption and amendments of May 27, 2015, to Policy 2.57 in the Rule Challenge and asserting a violation of the flexibility granted to charter schools for the amended provisions in the Charter Petition.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent took "agency action" when it certified the Okaloosa-Walton College Foundation, Inc. as its direct support organization and endorsed the Foundation's decision to sell the Mattie Kelly property; and whether Petitioners have standing to request an administrative hearing on those issues.
Findings Of Fact The Foundation was incorporated and first certified as a direct support organization in 1988. The Mattie Kelly property is approximately 13 acres of waterfront property on Choctawhatchee Bay in Destin, Okaloosa County, Florida. It includes the former residence of Mattie Kelly and the real property surrounding the residence. Destin, Okaloosa County, Florida, is a municipality, bounded on the north and west by Choctawhatchee Bay, on the south by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the east by Walton County, Florida. On August 17, 1992, Mattie Kelly executed her Last Will and Testament (will). Article VIII of the will states as follows: I give, devise and bequeath my personal residence located a 1200 Indian Trail Road, Destin, Florida 32541, including all real property surrounding the residence and the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000,000) to Okaloosa-Walton Community College for the establishment of the "Mattie Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute of Okaloosa-Walton Community College." The purpose of the "Mattie M. Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute of Okaloosa-Walton Community College" shall be: To provide a meeting place for literary societies, fine arts groups, and small performing groups. To provide a location for conferences and seminars offered through Okaloosa-Walton Community College. To provide a location for biology studies and marine science studies associated with Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. To provide a location for displaying the coastal heritage of Northwest Florida. The Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000,000) endowment which forms part of this gift shall be used only for maintenance and operating costs in furtherance of the above purposes, including the perpetual care, maintenance and upkeep of my mausoleum. A Personal Representative's Warranty Deed dated March 6, 1997, conveyed the property to the Foundation. At some point in time, the Foundation decided to sell the property to a real estate developer and entered into a contract to do so. On March 15, 2004, Petitioner Hammet filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Board. The petition questioned whether the Board should support, endorse, and/or not oppose the sale of the property for private real estate development purposes, accept the college president's recommendation about the sale, and certify the Foundation to be operating in the best interest of the state. The Board's March 16, 2004, minutes state as follows in relevant part: ACTION AGENDA DSO Certification/IRS 990 The District Board of Trustees certified that requirements of Direct Support Organization under FS 1004.70 have been met and that the OWCC Foundation is in compliance with the procedures as herein described and accepts Form IRS 990 as submitted. Further, the District Board of Trustees supports and endorses the Foundation Board of Directors in its endeavor to sell the Mattie Kelly Property (Motion: Henderson; Second Rainer. Vote: 6 yes; 2 no (Smith, Wells). Motion carried. On April 22, 2004, the Board referred Petitioner Hammet's petition to DOAH, together with the Board's Motion to Dismiss. DOAH assigned this case DOAH Case No. 04-2049. On June 15, 2004, the Board referred the following to DOAH: (a) Petitioner Coastkeepers' Petition for Administrative Hearing; (b) Petitioner's Motion and Suggestion for Disqualification of Joseph Henderson and James R. Richburg; and the Board's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Administrative Hearing. DOAH assigned the case DOAH Case No. 04-2141. On July 8, 2004, some of Ms. Kelly's relatives filed a suit against the Foundation in Circuit Court. In Count I of the complaint, the relatives sought a declaratory judgment that the Foundation's proposed sale violates Ms. Kelly's will and that the relatives had reversionary rights to the property. In Count II of the complaint, the relatives sought injunctive relief to restrain the Foundation from selling the property to a third party in accordance with a written contract of sale. On April 20, 2005, the Florida Attorney General issued an Advisory Legal Opinion, stating that the Foundation is subject to Florida's Sunshine Law. On May 5, 2005, the Foundation voted to ratify the contract to sell the property and to confirm the prior decision to sell the property. On June 3, 2005, the First Circuit Court entered a "Final Judgment for Defendant" in L. Bernarr Kelly, Carol Kelly and Lowell B. Kelly v. The Okaloosa-Walton Community College Foundation, Inc., No. 2004-CA-405 (Fla. 1st Cir. Ct. June 3, 2005), which states as follows in pertinent part: . . . The Court is convinced by the nature of the Will, and the testimony and evidence that Mattie Kelly had legal advice in her estate planning, that if Mattie Kelly intended for the subject property to be placed in a trust, and if she desired to put restrictions on the subject property to prevent Defendant Foundation from selling it, that she knew how to accomplish this, and that she chose not to do so. The Court finds . . . that Mattie Kelly did not intend to limit or restrict the sale of the subject property in the future to fulfill her desires for the creation of a cultural and environmental institute. . . . The Court finds that the deed dated March 6, 1997, . . . does not contain a reverter clause or language creating any right of reversion. . . . The Court finds that the deed conveyed a fee simple title to the OWCC Foundation with no right of reversion. The Court further finds that this deed was in accordance with the intent of Mattie Kelly at the time she executed her will. The Court finds that Article VIII of the Will which devised the subject property contains no language of trust and no language of reverter, and did not create a charitable trust . . . . The Court further finds that Defendant's proposed sale of the subject property does not include the "mausoleum property." . . . Since the mausoleum property is not being conveyed, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs no longer have standing as to the remaining property, and would deny Plaintiffs relief on this basis, in addition to the foregoing reasons. Therefore, the Court finds for the Defendant, The Okaloosa-Walton Community College Foundation, Inc. and against the Plaintiffs, and ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows: Defendant Foundation's proposed sale of the subject property is not in derogation of Article VIII of the Last Will and Testament of Mattie Kelly, or the deed which conveyed the subject property to Defendant Foundation. Therefore, Defendant Foundation is not prohibited from selling the subject property, excluding the mausoleum property as described in Addendum #4 to the Contract for Sale and Purchase, in order to fulfill the intent of Mattie Kelly in creating the "Mattie M. Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute;" however, all monies received from the sale of the subject property, including any matching funds, are to be used in the establishment and operation of the Mattie M. Kelly Cultural and Environmental Institute. [Emphasis added.] On June 8, 2005, Petitioners filed a Joint First Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, stating as follows regarding standing: Petitioner Hammet's substantial interests will be affected by Respondent's determination because she and her family live within close proximity to the Mattie Kelly property and have often used and enjoyed the property for viewing the coastal heritage of Northwest Florida, and she wishes to continue to use and enjoy the property in the future. The Mattie Kelly property is a special place for Hammet and her family, where they have many pleasant memories and regularly have benefited from this public property being in their neighborhood. Hammet and her family will no longer be able to use and enjoy this accessible public resource if it is sold for private development. Petitioner Coastkeepers' substantial interest will be affected by Respondent's determination because it is a Florida non-profit corporation dedicated to protection of the environment in an area of the Gulf of Mexico Coast that includes Okaloosa and Walton Counties and Choctawhatchee Bay. Preservation of environmentally sensitive lands such as the Mattie Kelly property, and having the Mattie Kelly property as a location for biological studies, marine science studies, and studies of the coastal heritage of Northwest Florida, are vitally important to protecting Choctawhatchee Bay and the interest of Petitioner and its members, who include a substantial number of members who reside in Okaloosa and Walton Counties and have the present intention to use, visit, enjoy, and study biological, marine science and cultural heritage issues associated with Choctawhatchee Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mattie Kelly property at the Mattie Kelly property. The Mattie Kelly property is ideally suited to provide waterfront environmental education in an otherwise highly urbanized environment, including education of local residents, which is vital to controlling urban runoff, and for highlighting, encouraging, and educating the public of the need to protect Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The Mattie Kelly property would no longer be available for such intended pursuits were the proposed sale of the Mattie Kelly property to private development interest go forward. Moreover, the proposed development of the very property set aside by Mattie Kelly would itself directly contribute to the urban runoff known to be causing problems in Choctawhatchee Bay. Choctawhatchee Bay has many examples of waterfront subdivision development and very little opportunity for environmental protection education in a local setting near where waterfront residential owners already live. These purposes will not be as well-served by educational efforts at OWC's main campus in Niceville, which is not waterfront and miles away from Choctawhatchee Bay. If properly managed, the Mattie Kelly property should be the field trip every school-age child in Okaloosa and Walton County takes, which would be a lasting legacy to Mattie Kelly that would truly be consistent with her express purposes. This opportunity will be forever destroyed if the property is developed as proposed. On June 24, 2005, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Joint First Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. On July 5, 2005, Petitioners filed a Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Joint First Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. Neither of the Petitioners holds any title interest in the property.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a final order dismissing the Petitions for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 22nd day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Richburg, President Okaloosa-Walton Community College 100 College Boulevard Niceville, Florida 32578-1295 Joseph D. Lorenz, Esquire 1270 North Elgin Parkway, Suite C-12 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Steven A. Medina, Esquire Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner & Proctor, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Volusia County School Board, has good cause to non-renew Respondent?s charter for the Volusia Elementary Charter School as set forth in Petitioner?s Notice of Action to Not Renew the Charter for the Volusia Elementary Charter School Inc.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 2008, the School Board and Boston Avenue entered into the School Board of Volusia County, Florida Charter for the Academies of Excellence, Inc. (the “Charter”). The Charter, which was a contract between the parties, was effective from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2012. Pursuant to the Charter, Boston Avenue operates and maintains a pre-kindergarten through fifth grade charter school in DeLand, Florida. The school, which is a Florida public school, opened at the beginning of the Volusia County School District?s (“District”) 2008-2009 school year. The Charter provides that Boston Avenue is a unit of the District, is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the School Board, is accountable to the School Board for performance to the extent provided by law, and is subject to the laws of Florida and the rules of the State Board of Education. Florida public schools are subject to “a statewide program of educational assessment that provides information for the improvement of the operation and management of the public schools . . . .” School assessment is largely the result of student achievement assessment, including Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (“FCAT”) scores, and measures of effective school management. § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The Commissioner of Education is required to issue annual reports that describe student achievement in the state, each school district, and each school. The annual report assigns a grade to each school based on the results of the student achievement assessment scores, student learning gains, and improvement of the lowest 25th percentile of students in the school in reading and mathematics. Section 1008.34(1) establishes the grades and their meaning as follows: “A” - schools making excellent progress. “B” - schools making above average progress. “C” - schools making satisfactory progress. “D” - schools making less than satisfactory progress. “F” - schools failing to make adequate progress. Schools having an enrollment that is less than the minimum sample size do not receive a school grade. During its first year of operation in the 2008-2009 school year, Boston Avenue enrolled fewer than 100 students, which was less than the minimum sample size. It was therefore too small to receive a school grade. 7. For the 2009-2010 school year, Boston Avenue received a grade of “F.” For the 2010-2011 school year, Boston Avenue received a grade of “D.” For the 2011-2012 school year, Boston Avenue received a grade of “F.” Section XI.C.(1) of the Charter provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]his Contract may be renewed provided that a program review demonstrates that the criteria in section 1002.33(7)(a), Florida Statutes, have been successfully accomplished and that none of the grounds for non-renewal established by section 1002.33(8)(a), Florida Statutes, has been documented.” Dr. Parker took the position as the Board?s Coordinator of Accountability and Evaluation in January 2011. When she came to the job, the charter school program review process used a generic template that was applied to every charter school in the district, regardless of whether the areas of review listed on the template were applicable to a specific school?s charter. Dr. Parker modified the template to make it unique to each charter school, using the criteria of each charter to guide the language and structure of the template. Despite the change in the template, which is nothing more than a method of recording results, the charter review process remained essentially unchanged. In October 2011, the District conducted a program review of Boston Avenue to determine if the Charter should be renewed. On December 13, 2011, the Office of Program Accountability and Evaluation submitted its Boston Avenue Charter School Charter Review (“Review”) to the Superintendant of Schools. The Review covered the following topic areas: Curriculum and School Improvement Services, including the 2011 Annual Accountability Report; Facilities Services, Financial Services, including Finance, Budget and Insurance, and Food Services; Human Resources; Technology Services, including Student Accounting Services; Safety and Security; and Transportation Services. Each topic area had contract subtopics that were generally tied to specific Charter requirements and applicable statutory standards. The Review identified a number of areas in which Boston Avenue was deficient. Of the 80 individual contract subtopics, the Review identified 46 that were met, 19 that were partially met, 10 that were not met, and five that were not applicable. On March 22, 2012, Respondent submitted a Charter Review Response and Supplemental Appendix as its response to the December 13, 2012 Review. The evidence suggests that staff did not review or use the Charter Review Response and Supplemental Appendix in its deliberative process leading up to the decision to recommend non-renewal to the School Board. In March 2012, the School Board?s office of Curriculum and School Improvement Services and office of Student Transportation Services prepared supplemental reports to update the status of those subtopic areas that were previously determined to not meet the areas of review, and prepared revised charts that outlined their current status. It was suggested that the additional information set forth in the revised charts should not be considered in this proceeding, as it was generated after the normal review process was concluded. Given the de novo review afforded under the Administrative Procedures Act, the additional information and supplemental reports are pertinent to the consideration of whether the Charter should be renewed, and are considered herein. By its terms, the Charter expired on June 30, 2012. The vote to not renew the Charter was taken on March 30, 2012. A draft version of the Notice was provided as part of the agenda of the meeting. The meeting was attended by, among others, counsel for Boston Avenue and Boston Avenue Principal Nichole Gaw. After a short presentation by its staff and counsel, the School Board voted 5-0 to approve the school superintendant?s recommendation that the Boston Avenue Charter not be renewed. Counsel for Respondent understood the effect of the vote, and indicated to Petitioner that “[w]e will make a decision [whether to request a hearing] within the 14-day time.” The Notice was signed and executed on Friday, March 30, 2012. Petitioner made reasonable efforts to provide the signed Notice to Respondent on March 30, 2012, which efforts included an attempt to hand-deliver the Notice before 5:00 p.m., on that date to the Boston Avenue school building and to the law office of Respondent?s counsel. Both buildings were locked. In addition, efforts to electronically send the Notice to Petitioner were made over the weekend. Although reasonable efforts to effect delivery were made, the evidence is insufficient to prove that Respondent received actual written notice of Petitioner?s decision to not renew the Charter until an envelope containing the Notice was hand-delivered to an authorized agent of Respondent on Monday, April 2, 2012. Monday, April 2, 2012, was 89 days prior to the June 30, 2012, expiration of the Charter. Grounds for Non-Renewal 1. Failure to Meet the Requirements for Student Performance Stated in the Charter The Notice alleged that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student performance established in the Charter. The Charter included the following measures of student performance: FCAT Testing - Academic Progress Section III.B.(2) of the Charter provides that: Student academic progress will be measured by a growth model as evidenced by standardized tests. Student academic progress will be measured by FCAT under the following standards. The student will have improved his or her FCAT Achievement level one year to the next; or The student will have maintained his or her achievement level as a 3, 4 or 5 from one year to the next; or The student will have remained within FCAT Achievement levels 1 or 2, but will have demonstrated more than one year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale, applying the Department of Education?s measurement of growth.1/ Reading The evidence demonstrated that in 2011, Boston Avenue students performed in FCAT Reading as follows: Fourth Grade FCAT Reading 11.11 percent of fourth-grade students improved their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next, and an additional 8.33 percent maintained a level five -- the highest level achievable. 80.56 percent of fourth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next. 59% of fourth-grade students maintained their FCAT reading achievement level as a 3, 4, or 5 from one year to the next. 41% of fourth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT reading achievement level as a 3, 4, or 5 from one year to the next. 42% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 58% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. Fifth Grade FCAT Reading 4.76% of fifth-grade students improved their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next, and an additional 14.29% maintained a level five - the highest level achievable. 80.95% of fifth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT reading achievement level one year to the next. 90% of fifth-grade students maintained their FCAT reading achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 10% of fifth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT reading achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 29% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 71% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT reading achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. Math The evidence demonstrated that in 2011, Boston Avenue students performed in FCAT Math as follows: Fourth Grade FCAT Math 8.33% of fourth-grade students improved their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next, and an additional 5.56% maintained a level five -- the highest level achievable. 86.11% of fourth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next. 40% of fourth-grade students maintained their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 60% of fourth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 44% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 56% of fourth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. Fifth Grade FCAT Math 4.76% of fifth-grade students improved their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next. 95.24% of fifth-grade students failed to improve their FCAT math achievement level one year to the next. 50% of fifth-grade students maintained their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 50% of fifth-grade students failed to maintain their FCAT math achievement level as a three, four, or five from one year to the next. 60% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but demonstrated more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. 40% of fifth-grade students at level one or two remained within FCAT math achievement levels one or two, but failed to demonstrate more than one-year?s growth on the FCAT developmental scale. FCAT Testing - Academic Progress Conclusion A substantial, and often overwhelming, number of students failed to meet the criteria for academic progress measured by FCAT as established in section III.B.(2) of the Charter. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student academic progress established in section III.B.(2) of the Charter. FCAT Testing - Learning Gains In addition to the foregoing, section XIII.A. of the Charter provides, in pertinent part, that: The School shall be subject to the same accountability requirements as other public schools, including reports of student achievement information that links baseline student data to the School?s performance projections identified in the charter. The charter school shall identify reasons for any difference between projected and actual student performance. The “projections identified in this charter” shall be as follows: (1) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the students taking the FCAT will earn a learning gain on the reading portion of the FCAT; (2) Seventy-five percent (75%) of the students taking the FCAT will earn a learning gain on the math portion of the FCAT; (3) The average score for the students taking the science portion of the FCAT will meet or exceed the District average; and (4) The average score for the students taking the FCAT Writes will meet or exceed the District average. 54% of Boston Avenue students made learning gains on the reading portion of the FCAT in 2011. 44% of Boston Avenue students made learning gains on the math portion of the FCAT in 2011. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student learning gains established in section XIII.A. of the Charter. Other Student Assessment Tests Section III.B.(4) of the Charter provides that: In addition to the State required achievement tests, the School will use a standardized test for assessing students in core subject areas (reading, math, and science) in the Fall in order to get baseline data. The students will then be assessed in the Spring to determine the amount of yearly academic gain. Section III.B.(4) of the Charter governs the administration of the standardized assessment tests, rather than the results of the testing. The Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (“FAIR”) is an assessment test for reading proficiency that is provided by the state of Florida. All schools in the District administer the FAIR test three times a year. Boston Avenue met section III.B.(4) for reading by administering the FAIR in grades one through five. The Differentiated Accountability Assessment (“DA Assessment”) is an assessment test for math and science proficiency that was developed by District specialists, and has been used for a number of years. All schools in the District administer the DA test twice per year, in the fall and in the middle of the year. Boston Avenue met section III.B.(4) for math by administering the DA Assessment in grades three through five. Boston Avenue met section III.B.(4) for science by administering the DA Assessment for science in the fifth grade. In contrast to section III.B.(4) of the Charter, section III.B.(6) is directed to the results of the testing, and provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he academic progress of students and the School will be evaluated and compared to the rate of progress of the students in the Volusia County School District not enrolled in the School.” Thus, an analysis of the results of the FAIR testing for reading, and the DA Assessment testing for math and science, and their measurement of academic progress, is appropriate for determining whether Respondent met the Charter standards to warrant renewal. Standardized Test for Reading - FAIR The District has established that a student is “proficient” in reading if he or she correctly answers 80% of the questions on the FAIR for their grade level. A demonstration of proficiency in FAIR correlates to a high probability that a student can score at a level three or higher on the FCAT reading achievement test. The FAIR testing for first and second grade is predictive, since there is no corresponding FCAT test, but allows the school and the District to identify targeted areas of need before the students get to third grade where FCAT scores may require a repeat of grade. The Board created four categories of measuring student achievement based on performance on the FAIR testing performed during the year. A student was determined to have “decreased proficiency” if he or she went from proficient to below proficient in reading during the course of the year. A student was determined to have “maintained proficiency” if he or she scored above the 80% correct answer level during the course of the year. A student was determined to have “maintained below proficiency” if he or she scored below 80% correct answer level during the course of the year, but was not falling further behind. Finally, a student was determined to have “improved proficiency” if he or she scored went from below the 80% correct answer level to at or above the 80% correct answer level during the course of the year. First Grade FAIR Reading In first grade, 18% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 51% maintained proficiency, 23% of students maintained below proficiency, and 8% of students decreased in proficiency. With 69% of students reading at a level of proficiency by the end of the year, and with only 8% decreasing in proficiency, Dr. Parker indicated that “first grade isn?t necessarily a huge area of concern.” Second Grade FAIR Reading In second grade, 3% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 9% of students maintained proficiency, 77% of students maintained below proficiency, and 11% of students decreased in proficiency. Thus, 88% of Boston Avenue second grade students were reading below proficiency. Third Grade FAIR Reading In third grade, 11% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 5% maintained proficiency, 78% of students maintained below proficiency, and 5% of students decreased in proficiency. With a total of 83% of students reading below the level of proficiency, and with the FCAT test being administered at the end of the year, Dr. Parker characterized the FAIR results as “alarming.” Fourth Grade FAIR Reading In fourth grade, 3% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 41% of students maintained proficiency, and 56% of students maintained below proficiency. No fourth- grade students decreased in proficiency as assessed by FAIR. Fifth Grade FAIR Reading In fifth grade, 16% of students improved their proficiency in reading, 28% percent maintained proficiency, and 56% of students maintained below proficiency. No fifth-grade students decreased in proficiency as assessed by FAIR. Standardized Test for Math - DA Assessment The DA Assessment test uses the same proficiency standards and categories that were developed for the FAIR. As with the FAIR test for reading, the DA Assessment is designed to be predictive of how students will perform on the FCAT. Third Grade DA Math In third grade, 46% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency in math, and 54% of students maintained below proficiency. No third-grade students decreased in proficiency in math as assessed by the DA Assessment. Fourth Grade DA Math In fourth grade, 41% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency in math, and 59% of students maintained below proficiency. No fourth-grade students decreased in proficiency in math as assessed by the DA Assessment. Fifth Grade DA Math In fifth grade, 42% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency in math, and 54% of students maintained below proficiency. One fifth-grade student (4%, as based on a fifth-grade enrollment of 25 students) decreased in proficiency in math as assessed by the DA Assessment. Standardized Test for Science - DA Assessment In fifth grade, 4% of students maintained proficiency in science, 30% of students improved from below proficiency to proficiency, and 65% of students maintained below proficiency. No fifth-grade students decreased in proficiency in science as assessed by the DA Assessment. Failure to Maintain an Acceptable Level of Student Achievement in the State?s Education Accountability System and Other Standardized Testing Paragraphs 1 and 2.a. of the Notice make the school grades earned by Boston Avenue, and the results of the standardized student assessment tests, basis for the non-renewal of the Charter. The FAIR and DA Assessment test results demonstrate that, while some students demonstrated proficiency, the majority of students at Boston Avenue who were administered the non-FCAT standardized assessment testing either maintained below the level of proficiency or decreased in proficiency. Boston Avenue?s receipt of a school grade of “F” in the 2009-2010 school year, “D” in the 2010-2011 school year, and “F” in the 2011-2012 school year, combined with the results of the standardized student assessment tests, demonstrated a lack of student improvement over the course of the past three years. For the 2010-2011 school year, Boston Avenue was one of only two of the 46 elementary schools in the District to receive a grade of “D.” There were no “F” schools for that year. The total scoring based on the results of the assessment testing for that year placed Boson Avenue last among the 46 elementary schools in Volusia County by a substantial margin. For the 2011-2012 school year, Boston Avenue was one of only two of the 52 elementary schools in the District to receive a grade of “F.” The total scoring based on the results of the assessment testing for that year placed Boson Avenue last among the 52 elementary schools in Volusia County by an even wider margin than the previous year. Section 1002.33(7)(a)12., which governs the standards for issuance of a school charter, provides that the charter may be cancelled during its term “if insufficient progress has been made in attaining the student achievement objectives of the charter and if it is not likely that such objectives can be achieved before expiration of the charter.” Section 1002.33(7)(b)1., provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] charter may be renewed provided that a program review demonstrates that the criteria in paragraph (a) have been successfully accomplished and that none of the grounds for nonrenewal established by paragraph (8)(a) has been documented.” The grade of “F” for the most current year -- meaning that students at the school are failing to make adequate progress -- is strong evidence that the standards for renewal of the Charter have not been met. Thus, in the course of renewing a charter, it was not an error for the School Board to give consideration to the student achievement objectives, even those of a general and non-numeric nature. The evidence in this case, taken as a whole, demonstrates that Boston Avenue failed to meet levels of academic progress that approached even the lowest performing District-operated elementary schools in Volusia County. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to meet the objectives for student academic progress established in section III.B.(6) of the Charter, thus constituting a reasonable and valid basis for the non-renewal of the Charter. Comparison with Learning Gains of Similar District Schools Section III.B.(5) of the Charter provides that: To the greatest extent possible, a comparison of learning gains as defined by the State under the Florida A+ Accountability Plan will then be compared with the learning gains of similar district schools with comparable populations using demographic information obtained at www.myflorida.com. Learning gains will be examined as determined by the State based on the percentage of students in the lowest 25% of the School showing improvement of more than one year within level 1 or 2. The state minimum acceptable standard for performance in reading and mathematics by students in the lower quartile is 50% of these students will make a learning gain. The comparator elementary schools were determined by the percentage of students who were receiving free or reduced lunch and the percentage of students classified as a minority at each school. Those criteria are found to be adequate to represent schools with comparable demographic characteristics. Applying those criteria, 14 schools were determined to have “comparable populations” to Boston Avenue. In the 14 elementary schools having comparable populations, an average of 13.3% of students of lowest quartile within FCAT level one or two made learning gains in 2011. At Boston Avenue, 10.7% of students in the lowest quartile within FCAT level one or two made learning gains in 2011. Thus, neither Boston Avenue nor the average of the comparator schools came close to meeting the “state minimum acceptable standard” that 50% of the lower quartile of students within level one or two make more than one year of improvement. Although section III.B.(5) of the Charter set forth the state standard, it is not couched in language that would lend it to being applied as a Charter performance criterion. The fact that FCAT level one and two students at Boston Avenue and the comparative District schools were bunched closely in their levels of improvement, along with the incongruity of applying a standard of performance to Boston Avenue that is not being met by District schools, suggests that the 50% threshold is to be applied as an aspirational goal, rather than a standard for renewal. Thus, Boston Avenue?s failure to meet the “state minimum acceptable standard” set forth in section III.B.(5) of the Charter should not form a basis for non-renewal of the Charter. 3. Failure to Use State Approved Materials in Math Section III.A.(3) of the Charter provides that Boston Avenue?s “math curriculum will utilize a math series by Pearson/Scotts Foresman, or another math series approved by the State.” Paragraph 2.b. of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[Boston Avenue] is using the Saxon math series, which has not been approved by the State. This fact was pointed out to the administration at [Boston Avenue], but they indicated that they did not intend to make any change.” Boston Avenue has used and continues to use the Saxon math series. The Saxon math series is not a math series by Pearson/Scotts Foresman. The State of Florida issues an annual list of approved publishers and materials. The Saxon math series is not on the state-approved list. Mr. Viecelli and Mr. Jackson testified as to their belief in the effectiveness of the Saxon math series, and the reasons for its purchase and use at Boston Avenue. Dr. Parker and others testified as to the Saxon math series incompatibility with the District?s math curriculum map. Regardless of the arguments that can be made for or against the Saxon math series, the Charter is specific as to the math series to be used at Boston Avenue. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent failed to use an approved math series in violation of Section III.A.(3) of the Charter. 4. Failure of the Student Transportation Service to Comply with State Regulations Student transportation services relevant to this proceeding are set forth in Section V.E. of the Charter. That section provides, in pertinent part, that: The transportation will be consistent with the requirements of section 1006.21 through 1006.27, Florida Statutes, as well as Florida State Board of Education Administrative Rules of Transportation section 6A-3.0001 [sic] through 6A-3.037, as may be amended from time to time. * * * All bus operators who have not obtained proper certification from the Sponsor shall not be allowed to transport any of the School's students. The School must also provide the Sponsor with documentation of the thirty (30) day bus inspection required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 3.0171. The Sponsor reserves the right to inspect the School's buses at any time, with reasonable advance notice (usually 24 hours) so as not to disrupt the School's operation, unless exigent circumstances exist. Failure to comply with these provisions shall constitute "good cause" and the basis for termination of this charter contract. Paragraph 2.c. of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that: The student transportation service operated by BACS has persistently failed to comply with state regulations. Each year, the District conducts evaluations of the charter schools in the district to monitor compliance with the charter and the law. Each of the last three evaluations of BACS has noted serious violations in their student transportation service. Boston Avenue has provided transportation for its students since the 2009-2010 school year. It maintains a fleet of five buses, three of which operate on Boston Avenue?s three bus routes, and two of which were used as back-ups when needed. The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner provided reasonable advance notice of its inspections as set forth in the Charter. As a result of its October 2011 charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue did not have medical emergency plans on its buses for five students who qualified as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. A "504 Plan" describes the special conditions or non- medical care that a qualifying student may need while on the bus. Thus, the contract provision was determined to be “not met.” By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that Boston Avenue did not transport any qualifying students. Therefore, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failure to maintain medical emergency plans is not a sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. As a result of its October 2011, charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue?s Bus Stop Safety Check forms were not correctly or completely filled out. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that Boston Avenue?s Bus Stop Safety Check forms were inspected with no errors noted. Therefore, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failure to maintain correct Bus Stop Safety Check forms is not a sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. As a result of its October 2011, charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue failed to meet contract provisions regarding its bus drivers, including requirements for current DHSMV driving history checks, verification of weekly DHSMV updates for one of its drivers, and timely completion of new Category IV driver clearance forms. In addition, the School Board?s School Bus Operator Qualifications Evaluation Worksheet indicated that two of Boston Avenue?s bus operators did not have at least 40 hours of pre-service training, that three of the operators had deficiencies in their otherwise current medical examination certificates, and that the results of the operators? dexterity tests were not noted on their medical examination certificates, resulting in a performance level of 50%. The Performance Determination Worksheet instructed Boston Avenue to submit “a Corrective Action Plan” to remedy the deficiencies. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that “[a]ll operator records are in order and all are qualified to operate a school bus. The rating for the operators licensure/Qualifications review is 100% where a minimum of 95% is expected.” Accordingly, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failures set forth in this paragraph are not sufficient basis for non- renewal of the Charter. As a result of its October 2011, charter review, the School Board staff determined that Boston Avenue?s bus No. 9601 did not have a required seating chart onboard, and that bus No. 0356 did not have a required orange “No Students Left Onboard” sign in the back window. Mr. Viecelli indicated that the operator had taken the seating chart from the bus to update it on the day of the inspection, and had not yet returned it. He further indicated that the chart was always on the bus when in use. At the time the “no students” sign deficiency was noted, Bus 0356 was the spare, and was not being used to transport students. When Bus 0356 was taken out of service, the manual, including the emergency packet and all of the instructions and signs used to maintain compliance with state and charter requirements, was moved by the driver to the in-service bus. Boston Avenue has since created complete manuals for each of its five buses. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non- renewal, the compliance charts were revised to indicate that “[s]chool buses were checked for a Route sheet, Student Listing, Seating Chart and Crash Management Packet. Each bus had the required documents.” Accordingly, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failures set forth in this paragraph are not sufficient bases for non-renewal of the Charter. The School Board alleged that, in 2009, Boston Avenue did not use its designated bus loop, and that buses stopped on the roadway behind the school without extending the bus “stop arms” while unloading students. The evidence demonstrates that this alleged deficiency was resolved long before the March 2012 vote on non-renewal, and that the contract provision was “met” as of the December 2011, Charter Review report. The alleged failures set forth in this paragraph are not sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. The December 2011, Charter Review report indicated that the Charter provisions regarding School Bus Inspection Records were “partially met.” However, the report indicated that “[t]he rating for this review is 96.6% where a minimum of 95% is expected. The report indicated no significant or unresolved deficiencies. By March 15, 2012, prior to the vote on non-renewal, the status of the contract provision was changed to “met.” The alleged failure set forth in this paragraph is not sufficient basis for non-renewal of the Charter. The School Board conducts “spot check inspections” of Boston Avenue?s buses to monitor compliance operations and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. As a result of deficiencies found during a spot-check inspection on March 15, 2012, the District requested that Boston Avenue bring its buses to the District facility for full inspection. The inspection revealed 26 total deficiencies; 15 of those deficiencies were repaired on the spot. Of the remaining deficiencies, three were the result of fluid leaks of one kind or another. Each of the leaks was minor, and did not cause the fluid levels in the respective reservoirs to drop below normal, making them difficult to locate. Boston Avenue had previously contracted with a mechanic who was to have repaired the leaks, but was not successful. Boston Avenue changed mechanics, and the problems have been resolved. The evidence demonstrates that all of the operational deficiencies related to Boston Avenue?s transportation services noted in the October 2011, review were met before the School Board?s vote on the renewal of the Charter. The evidence demonstrates that Boston Avenue made substantial efforts to correct the fleet deficiencies, most of which were resolved before the School Board?s vote on the renewal of the Charter. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the deficiencies in Boston Avenue?s provision of transportation services were so persistent or pervasive as to constitute a basis for non-renewal under the terms of the Charter or the standards for non-renewal established in section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes. 5. Failure of the Governing Board to Exercise Continuing Oversight Over the Operations of Boston Avenue Paragraph 2.d. of the Notice provides that: The governing Board for BACS has failed to exercise continuing oversight over the operations of the charter school. Section 1002.33(9)(i), Fla. Stat., requires that the “governing board of the charter school exercise continuing oversight over charter school operations.” Several instances establish that the governing board for BACS failed to meet its obligations under that section of the statute. The Charter contains no specific standards pertaining to the requisite degree of oversight necessary to establish compliance with section 1002.33(9)(i). Paragraphs VI.A.10. and of the Charter require that Boston Avenue provide information to the School Board, including internal financial control policies and procedures and copies of internal audits and financial audits prepared by Boston Avenue or on its behalf. Boston Avenue complied with those requirements. Failure to Properly Monitor Expenditures by the Management Company Paragraph 2.d., bullet point one, of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he governing body has failed to properly monitor expenditures by its management company, School Management Solutions, Inc.” School Management Solutions, Inc. ("SMS") is Boston Avenue's school management company. SMS is a contractor that provides payroll, finance, purchasing, human resources, and other services to Boston Avenue. The Financial Services section of the December 2011, Review indicated that two of the 13 financial factors were “partially met,” with the remainder being met or not applicable. As it pertains to the failure to properly monitor expenditures, the Notice cited the audit report, and noted the purchase of “large dollar purchases by SMS prior to Boston Avenue Board approval.” The evidence indicated the expenditure to be for a school bus purchased for $6,500, which exceeded the limit of $5,000 for expenditures by SMS without Board approval. The Boston Avenue Board subsequently approved the expenditure. The audit also noted an SMS employee salary that was billed to Boston Avenue in addition to the SMS management fee. The SMS employee was the food services director, who worked at the school but whose salary was not included in the management fee. The review report indicated that Boston Avenue responded to the School Board?s Summary of Findings, and stated that: The policy has been reviewed and reiterated with the school staff and management company. The Board has been advised to appoint a treasurer or liaison person to more thoroughly review the financial statements and monitor the budget. There was no suggestion that Boston Avenue?s response to the review report finding was determined to be inadequate, or that it would not resolve the issue. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Boston Avenue?s alleged failure to properly monitor expenditures by SMS was sufficient to constitute a basis for non-renewal under the terms of the Charter or the standards for non-renewal established in section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes. Conflict of Interest Resulting from the Management Company Appointing and Recommending Members of the Boston Avenue Board of Directors. Paragraph 2.d., bullet point two, of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]the governing board for BACS improperly permitted an official from [SMS] to appoint and recommend members of the Board of Directors, which represents a conflict of interest.” The report of the independent auditors made the statement that “the management company (School Management Solutions, Inc.) has expressed the authority to appoint and recommend members of the [Boston Avenue] Board of Directors, which represents a conflict of interest.” (emphasis added). The report did not provide any detail as to how that expression was made, or by whom. There was no other evidence to support the auditor?s statement, nor was there any evidence that SMS actually appointed or recommended members of the Boston Avenue Board of Directors. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, a conflict of interest as alleged. Failure to Conduct Employment History Checks. Paragraph 2.d., bullet point three, of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[SMS] has not been conducting the employment history checks required by statute before hiring an individual.” The Notice specifically alleged, as the basis for non-renewal: . . . that the required employment history check had not been conducted in the majority of the files reviewed. In a recent site visit, it was found that while a review of the files showed that they now contain a standard reference form, a review of those forms revealed that the majority of the references listed were personal references as indicated on their application, not previous employers as required by the statute. Instead, there was a standard statement - “all references gave positive reviews of the employee and recommend the company hire the employee.” (emphasis added). The Notice did not allege other deficiencies in the employment screening process. Thus, deficiencies related to fingerprint records, criminal background checks, drug screening and the like were not pled as basis for the non-renewal of the Charter, and are not considered herein. Section 1002.33(12)(g)4., provides that: [b]efore employing instructional personnel or school administrators in any position that requires direct contact with students, a charter school shall conduct employment history checks of each of the personnel?s or administrators? previous employers . . . . If unable to contact a previous employer, the charter school must document efforts to contact the employer. Section 1002.33(12)(g)5. provides that “[t]he sponsor of a charter school that knowingly fails to comply with this paragraph shall terminate the charter under subsection(8).” During the October 2011, site visit, the School Board representatives noted that the employee references were not in employee files. Ms. Paige-Pender testified that “there were not the required two phone references, a minimum of two phone references to the last two employers for each employee on file, which is required by Florida Statute.”2/ Mr. Jackson attributed the deficiency to a change in the law, which he understood to previously allow either personal or professional references, but which he believed to have been changed after the opening of Boston Avenue. The Boston Avenue Charter was entered on June 24, 2008, and became effective on July 1, 2008. Section 1002.33(12)(g)4. was enacted in substantially its present form as chapter 2008-108, §14, Laws of Florida, and became effective on July 1, 2008. Thus, the suggestion that employment history checks were not required at the time the Charter was granted and the school was opened is unsupported and not accepted. Mr. Jackson testified that upon being advised of the employment history check deficiency, Boston Avenue and/or SMS contacted each employee?s professional references. Since there is no standard state form for documenting employment checks, SMS documented those checks on a form developed by SMS. Ms. Paige- Pender indicated that her review of the employment history forms demonstrated that many of the references were personal references, and that many employee files did not include information from past employers or documentation of efforts to contact the past employers. While the appearance of the form itself does violate the Charter or state law, Ms. Paige-Pender?s testimony that the forms did not contain the information required was credible, and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent or its agent failed to conduct employment history checks before hiring personnel or administrators, as alleged, and failed to make its employment history records current after notice of the deficiency. 6. Failure to be in Good Corporate Standing Section X.A. of the Charter provides that Respondent “is a not for profit corporation formed and organized under the applicable laws of the state of Florida, and for the duration of this charter shall take all actions necessary to maintain that status in good standing.” Paragraph 2.e. of the Notice alleged that Boston Avenue failed to maintain its corporate standing under the laws of the state of Florida. At the time of the October 2011, review, Respondent had been administratively dissolved by the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations for failure to file its annual report and fees. On March 22, 2012, the corporate fees were paid, and Respondent was reinstated prior to the March 30, 2012, meeting of the Board at which the proposed non-renewal was considered and approved. Section 607.1422(3), provides that “[w]hen the reinstatement [of an administratively dissolved corporation] is effective, it relates back to and takes effect as of the effective date of the administrative dissolution and the corporation resumes carrying on its business as if the administrative dissolution had never occurred.” Based on the foregoing, it is found that the School Board failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent?s corporate standing was a valid basis for the non-renewal of the Charter. 7. Violation of Law in the Operation of Boston Avenue Paragraph 3 of the Notice alleged that Respondent, or its agent, SMS, violated Florida law by failing to conduct employment history checks and by failing to maintain Boston Avenue in good-standing as a not-for-profit organization. Paragraph 3 of the Notice is a reiteration of the allegations contained in paragraph 2.d., bullet point three, and paragraph 2.e. of the Notice, and the findings as to this allegation are those set forth for those paragraphs above. School Board Actions Impairing Performance Respondent has argued that a history of “bad blood” existed between the Board and Boston Avenue that tainted the relationship, and potentially resulted in the artificial lowering of Boston Avenue?s school grades. The evidence indicates that the Board and the District followed established procedures with regard to its actions, which included providing notice prior to conducting transportation inspections, and placing FCAT monitors into all classrooms of school that had received a grade of “F” for the preceding year. The evidence that the monitors acted inappropriately during the testing was not convincing, and in any event was not sufficient to establish that the presence of the monitors was so disruptive as to result in a decline in student performance in their FCAT testing. Limitation on the Grounds for Non-Renewal Respondent?s argument that only items related to student safety may form the basis for non-renewal is not persuasive. The purpose of public schools, including charter schools, is to ensure the academic progress and achievement of their students. It was not outside of the scope of the School Board?s authority to base its decision as to whether to renew the charter on the extent to which the goals for student performance and achievement established by the Charter were met. Ultimate Findings of Fact The standards for academic performance set forth in the Charter were sufficient to allow the School Board to make a reasoned assessment as to whether criteria in the Charter regarding student performance and achievement were met during the period of operation. The evidence in this case demonstrates that Boston Avenue has failed, in virtually every measurable area, to keep pace with the educational standards of schools operated by the District. Respondent?s failure to meet the standards for academic performance and achievement as set forth herein forms a reasonable basis for non-renewal of the Charter. Except for Boston Avenue?s failure to conduct timely and complete employment history checks, the basis for non- renewal identified as “other good cause shown,” either were not proven or would not, standing alone, constitute sufficient grounds for non-renewal. As to the employment history checks, the School Board proved that violation of the charter and Florida statute, in combination with the other areas of non- compliance with the Charter, forms a reasonable basis for non- renewal of the Charter. Based on the evidence and testimony as a whole, the School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Boston Avenue failed to meet the criteria for renewal of its Charter, and that its proposed action to deny the renewal of the Charter was not in error.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Volusia County School Board, enter a final order declining to renew the charter school agreement existing between it and Volusia Elementary Charter School, Inc., d/b/a Boston Avenue Charter School. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2012.
