The Issue Whether the Broward County School Board (School Board) has an unwritten policy excluding all charter schools, including the City's charter schools, from consideration in the distribution of funds under Section 1011.71(2), Florida Statutes1 (Challenged Statement) and, if so, whether that unwritten policy constitutes a "rule," within the meaning of Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the City of Pembroke Pines (City).
The Issue Whether Broward County School Board has good cause to non- renew Automotive Technical Charter High School of South Florida, Inc.'s Charter School Agreement.
Findings Of Fact On June 19, 2001, the School Board approved the initial Charter School Agreement that allowed Parkway Academy to open. The original contract was effective for a ten-year period, which ended on June 30, 2011. Parkway Academy was assigned school location number 5181. Parkway Academy serves students from both Broward and Miami-Dade counties. Parkway Academy is located on Broward College Campus and the 2011-2012 school year enrollment was approximately 517 students. Eighty-five students were in Parkway Academy's most recent graduating class and 84 were accepted into college. Charter schools are part of the public school system and are required to follow the same precepts as a public school. During the 2010-2011 school year, the school district conducted a program review of Parkway Academy's Charter to determine if the charter should be renewed. After the first program review conducted during the 2010-2011 school year, the School Board determined that Parkway Academy had academic performance and programmatic deficiencies. As a result of the deficiencies, the School Board only granted Parkway Academy a one-year renewal Charter. Parkway Academy's Charter was renewed for the 2011-2012 school year, permitting the school to operate through June 30, 2012. The Charter Agreement mandated that Parkway Academy "provide educational services in accordance with the terms of [the] charter school agreement." The Charter School Agreement provided the following contractual performance obligations in Section 2.D: "Any non- renewal cancellation or termination of the Charter shall be subject to Section 1002.33(8), Florida Statutes, and the terms of this Charter." Section 2.D.1. of the Charter prohibited Parkway Academy from being designated a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years and provided the following non-renewal provisions: a failure by the School to participate in the state's education accountability system created in section 1008.31 or failure to meet requirements for student performance stated in this Charter. * * * (f) receipt by the School of a state- designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of Four(4) years or the School is designated as "a school in need of improvement" for more than Two (2) years [more than Five (5) years of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP)], in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A "school in need of improvement" is one that has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5) years in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the School receiving less than 395 points for elementary and middle schools and less than 790 for high schools on the Florida Grades issued by the Florida Department of Education. Schools that receive a school improvement designation of "Declining" will also be considered the equivalent to an "F" grade. The foregoing point designations or school improvement ratings shall be amended during the term of this Charter to conform to current state law or rules; Section 2.D.1.a of the Charter delineated what constitutes "good cause" for charter termination or non-renewal and read in pertinent part: "Good cause" for termination or non-renewal shall include, but not be limited to, the following: * * * (2) receipt by the School of a state- designated grade of "F" in any Two (2) of Four (4) years or the School is designated as "a school in need of improvement" for more than "Two (2) years [more than Five (5) years of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)], in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A "school in need of improvement" is one that has failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for more than Five (5) years in accordance with the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The equivalent of an "F" grade is defined as the School receiving less than 395 points for elementary and middle schools and less than 790 for high schools on the Florida Grades issued by the Florida Department of Education. Schools that receive a school improvement designation of "Declining" will also be considered the equivalent to an "F" grade. The foregoing point designations or school improvement ratings shall be amended during the term of this Charter to conform with the current state or rules. * * * (22) any other good cause shown, which shall include without limitation, any material breach or violation by the School of the standards, requirements or procedures of this Charter such as: * * * (c) the School's failure to fulfill all the requirements for highly qualified instructional personnel as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) * * * (t) a failure by the School to fulfill all of the requirements for highly qualified instructional personnel as defined by NCLB Section 11.D of the Charter provided the requirements for teacher certification and highly qualified teachers and read in pertinent part: All teachers employed by or under contract to the School shall be certified and highly qualified as required by Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes and any other applicable state of federal law. Criteria developed by the School for hiring all other staff (administrative and support staff) shall be in accordance with their educational and/or experiential backgrounds that correspond to the job responsibilities they will be expected to perform. If the School receives Title I funds, it will employ highly qualified staff. In compliance with those requirements, the School's teachers shall be certified and teaching in-field and the School's support staff shall have attained at least Two (2) years of college education or have passed an equivalent exam. The School may employ or contract with skilled selected non-certified personnel to provide instructional services or to assist instructional staff members as education paraprofessionals in the same manner as defined in Chapter 1012 and as provided by State Board of Education rule for charter school Governing Boards; however, in order to comply with NCLB requirements, all teachers in core academic areas must be certified/qualified based on Florida Statutes and highly qualified as required by NCLB. The School agrees to disclose to the parents of its students the qualifications of instructional personnel hired by the School. Parkway Academy's Charter Agreement for the 2011-2012 school year was signed by the parties on or about March 3, 2011, and went into effect July 1, 2011. The School District conducted its next renewal review of Parkway Academy during the last week of October and first week of November of 2011 to determine if the charter school renewal should go beyond the 2011-2012 school year. Diane Rogers ("Rogers"), Personnel Administrator for the Certification Department, audited and reviewed Parkway Academy's instructors and the courses each instructor was teaching. On or about October 26, 2011, Rogers retrieved teacher assignment information from the Data Warehouse1 and reviewed the instruction assignments and qualifications for the 2011-2012 school year to make a determination if each of Parkway Academy's teachers were certified, teaching in field, out of field, highly qualified, or not highly qualified for the teaching assignments he/she had been given. After completing the teacher review audit, Rogers identified the following five faculty members who lacked appropriate teacher certification: John Ahrens ("Ahrens"), Valerie Cedant ("Cedant"), Jerry Goodbolt ("Goodbolt"), Talondra Ingram ("Ingram"), and Uriel Williams ("Williams"). Rogers found Ahrens was teaching auto mechanics and auto tech but did not have the required Broward certificate. Rogers notified Parkway Academy in November 2011 that Ahrens needed a Broward teaching certificate. Rogers also found that Cedant previously had a temporary certificate, which expired June 30, 2011, and Ingram's temporary certificate had also expired before the 2011-2012 school year. Additionally, Goodbolt was working at the school without ever applying for a teaching certificate. While assessing the Parkway Academy, Rogers also discovered Williams had applied for a certificate from the Florida Department of Education ("FDOE"). FDOE determined his status was ineligible for a Florida educator's certificate in any area. Therefore, Rogers properly categorized Williams as not highly qualified to teach his assignments, Physical Education, Personal Fitness and Health Education, for the school because Williams did not have the basic requirement, a Florida educator's certificate. Rogers also identified the following eight teachers who did not have the required highly qualified2 status when she did her review: Floyd Barber ("Barber"), Cedant, Ingram, Gleandeal Johnson ("Johnson"), Lee Kornhauser ("Kornhauser"), Hyaptia Mata ("Mata"), Roxanna Smilovich ("Smilovich"), and Manage Vincent ("Vincent"). Rogers determined that Cedant was not highly qualified in that Cedant was precluded from the status because she did not have a valid educator's certificate and was also teaching improperly out of field without a valid educator's certificate. Rogers determined that Barber was not highly qualified to teach his assignment, Literature and Arts, since his FDOE certification was in Business Education. Therefore, he was improperly teaching out of field at Parkway Academy. Rogers also found in her review that Johnson had a FDOE certificate in Business Education 6 through 12 but she was assigned to teach Journalism, which requires FDOE certification either in English 6 through 12, Journalism, or English 5 through Therefore, Johnson was not highly qualified to teach Journalism because she was teaching out of field improperly, and she had not met the requirements. Rogers also discovered during her audit that Kornhauser was FDOE certified in Math 5 through 9, which allows him to teach middle school grade level math but he was assigned to teach Business Math and Math for College Readiness, which requires a Mathematics 6 through 12 certification. Therefore, Rogers determined that Kornhauser was not highly qualified to teach his assigned courses and was improperly teaching out of field. Rogers' review of Mata found that she was FDOE certified in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned to teach Earth Space Science, Chemistry, and Physics, all three of which required certifications other than Biology. Rogers determined Mata was not highly qualified to teach the three courses and was improperly teaching out of field. Upon review, Rogers found that Smilovich's FDOE certification was in Biology 6 through 12, but she was assigned to teach Earth Space Science, which requires certification in Chemistry, Physics, Earth Space Science, or General Science 5 through 9. Rogers' audit also determined that Smilovich was not highly qualified for her assigned class, and she was improperly teaching Earth Space Science out of field. Rogers' review also found Vincent was FDOE certified in Biology 6 through 12, but Vincent was teaching Chemistry, which requires a certification in Chemistry 6 through 12. Rogers determined that Vincent was not highly qualified for the teaching assignment and was improperly teaching Chemistry out of field. Parkway Academy employed and had the following instructors teaching out of field for the 2011-2012 school year without the proper credential for the core course of instruction they were assigned: Cedant, Ingram, Johnson, Kornhauser, Mata, Smilovich, Vincent, and Williams. Seventeen out of the 52 classes at Parkway Academy were being taught out of field. After discovering the teachers who were teaching out of their fields during her audit, Rogers also checked to determine if Parkway Academy had complied with the requirement to notify the parents that their children had teachers providing instruction out of field. Rogers found that Parkway Academy had only notified parents partially regarding Vincent and Mata. She concluded that the newsletter notification was incomplete for Mata because it listed only one of her areas being out of field, and it failed to notify the parents about the other instructors teaching out of field. Rogers concluded her audit by determining that Parkway Academy did not comply with the Charter School Agreement and laws because the school failed to employ teachers who all had valid teaching certificates, failed to have all of its teachers teaching in the appropriate field, failed to correctly designate teachers who were highly qualified to teach core curriculum subject areas, and failed to correctly notify parents that their children were being taught by teachers who were out of field. Rogers emailed Parkway Academy on or about December 1, 2011, and requested updated information on the status of each deficiency regarding the instructors that lacked the proper certification and/or qualifications that she had discovered during her review. Parkway Academy provided Rogers an email update the next day on each teacher Rogers had listed in the email of December 1, 2011, that was not in compliance, but Parkway Academy never provided Rogers any replacement teachers' names or certifications to verify compliance as she requested. During December 2011, Parkway Academy took the following measures to correct some of the teacher certification and qualification deficiencies. Parkway Academy replaced Cedant, Ingram, and Smilovich with certified, highly qualified teachers. Also, Parkway Academy changed Barber, Johnson, and Kornhauser's core course codes to courses they were certified to teach. Parkway also obtained out of field agreements with Mata and Vincent to teach courses they were not certified to teach while each worked on certification in the area they were teaching. The School Board's Testing and Assessment Department also reviewed Parkway Academy's Charter. Among other things, the Department looked at Parkway Academy's Adequate Yearly Progress ("AYP"), the measure of school performance used to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB"). The Testing and Assessment Department found that Parkway Academy did not meet AYP for the latest school year 2010-2011, which was reported after the signing of the renewal Charter School Agreement in March 2011. Additionally, the Department determined that the failure to meet the requirements for student performance for the 2010-2011 school year meant Parkway Academy had failed to make AYP for the following eight consecutive years: 2003-2004, 2004- 2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011. Parkway Academy's failure to meet the AYP for eight consecutive years earned the school the status of a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years. Parkway Academy failed to operate in compliance with the Charter School Agreement. The Certification Department's audit review report which showed a failure to use instructors that had the proper certification and/or qualifications for a substantial part of the year, combined with the Testing and Assessment Department's review results that concluded the Respondent was a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years due to failing to make AYP for eight consecutive years, caused a recommendation to be made to the School Board to non-renew Parkway Academy's Charter. On March 20, 2012, the School Board voted not to renew Parkway Academy's Charter. A Proposed Non-Renewal of its Charter notice was sent to Parkway Academy. On April 4, 2012, the School Board received Parkway's letter dated April 2, 2012, requesting a hearing upon the proposed Charter non-renewal, which was forwarded to the DOAH. The day of the formal hearing, Ahrens obtained a vocational certificate, which qualified him to teach auto mechanics and auto tech. Kornhauser neither had applied for nor obtained mathematics certification for grades 6 though 12.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board, enter a final order declining to renew the Charter School Agreement for Automotive Technical Charter High School of South Florida Inc., upon both the statutory and contractual grounds of (1) failure to meet the requirements for student performance stated in Parkway Academy's Charter including the school's status as a "school in need of improvement" for more than two years; (2) failure to use instructors having proper certification and/or qualifications; (3) failure to have teachers teaching in their fields; and (4) failure for Parkway Academy to disclose the out of field qualifications to the students' parents. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 10th day of August, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Respondent commenced the 1985-86 school year as a student in the eighth grade at Palms Springs Junior High School. By letter dated November 22, 1985, Petitioner advised Respondent's parents that Respondent "as being administratively assigned, effective immediately, to the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North. That letter further advised of a right of review of Respondent's placement into the opportunity school program until Respondent had made sufficient progress to be returned to the regular school program. Respondent's mother requested a hearing on that placement. On December 5 1985, a "withdrawal card" from the Dade County public schools was executed. At the hearing in this cause on March 17, 1986, Respondent testified that he has never attended the Jan Mann Opportunity School-North while waiting for review of that placement and in fact has been attending no school since he was administratively assigned. In response to questioning as to what he has been doing since his administrative reassignment of November 22, 1985, Respondent replied, "Nothing." Although Respondent's mother agreed during the formal hearing in this cause that she would place her son back into the school system and would send him to the opportunity school while awaiting the outcome of this proceeding, she has not done so. Pursuant to instructions from the undersigned, on March 31, 1986, Petitioner filed a Certification advising that as of March 27, 1986, Respondent was still not in attendance within the Dade County school system. Respondent was born on August 14, 1970.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Respondent's request for an administrative review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of May, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 486-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder Esquire 2780 Galloway Road Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami Florida 33165 James M. Ratliff Esquire Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami Florida 33147-4796 Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami Florida 33132
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 to be determined in this proceeding are whether St. Lucie County School Board (School Board) Rules 6.16 and 6.50*+ are invalid exercises in delegated legislative authority as defined by sections 120.52(8)(c), (d), and (e).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Jones is currently an employee of the St. Lucie County School Board, and has a professional service contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Her status with the School Board is “suspended without pay,” for reasons that are not relevant to this proceeding. As a classroom teacher, Ms. Jones is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board of St. Lucie County and the Classroom Teachers Association. On June 13, 2017, the School Board suspended Ms. Jones without pay and on July 27, 2017, a Petition for Termination in Termination I was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing. At that point, while Ms. Jones remained an employee of the School Board, she received no pay and no benefits from the School District. She began to look for other employment to support herself and her family. Ms. Jones applied to and was offered a job to work as a music teacher by the Somerset Academy St. Lucie (Somerset). Somerset is a charter school in St. Lucie County sponsored by and located within the geographical bounds of the School District and the jurisdictional bounds of the School Board. Ms. Jones did not submit an application for leave and the School Board did not approve a request for leave of absence in order for Ms. Jones to work at Somerset. By letter dated August 28, 2017, Superintendent Gent notified Ms. Jones of his intent to recommended to the School Board that she be terminated for grounds in addition to the already-existing suspension, i.e., for violating the School Board’s Rules 6.16(1); 6.301(2), (3)(b)(i), (3)(b)(xix), and (3)(b)(xxix); and 6.50*+. That letter became the basis for the Termination II proceeding. The factual basis for pursuing the second termination proceeding was that Ms. Jones was working at Somerset without having applied for and received approval for a leave of absence from the School Board. The merits of the School Board’s allegations in this second proceeding are no longer relevant in terms of Ms. Jones’ employment with the School Board, as the School Board, through counsel, has represented that the School Board no longer intends to pursue the allegations in Termination II. The allegations are relevant and informative, however, in establishing the School Board’s interpretation of its rules and establishing Ms. Jones’ standing to challenge the validity of those rules. The evidence presented at hearing established that Ms. Jones has standing to bring this rule challenge. School Board rule 6.16 is entitled “Dual employment,” and provides as follows: No person may be employed to work in more than one position in the school system except upon the recommendation of the Superintendent and approval of the School Board. No employee shall accept other employment that might impair the independence of his or her judgment in the performance of his or her duties. Rule 6.16 lists as its statutory authority sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and lists sections 1001.43 and 1012.22 as the laws implemented. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. School Board Policy 6.50*+ is entitled “Leave of Absence,” and provides in pertinent part: Leave of absence. A leave of absence is permission granted by the School Board or allowed under its adopted policies for an employee to be absent from duty for a specified period of time with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave. Any absence of a member of the staff from duty shall be covered by leave duly authorized and granted. Leave shall be officially granted in advance and shall be used for the purposes set forth in the leave application. Leave for sickness or other emergencies may be deemed to be granted in advance if prompt report is made to the proper authority. Length of Leave and Pay. Generally, no leave or combination of leaves, except military leave or Workers’ Compensation Leave, will be granted for a period in excess of one year. Illness-in-line-of- duty leave may not be extended beyond the maximum medical improvement date or a maximum of two (2) years from the date of injury, whichever is the earliest date. Leave may be with or without pay as provided by law, regulations of the State Board, and these rules. For any absence that is without pay, the deduction for each day of absence shall be determined by dividing the annual salary by the number of days/hours for the employment period. Employment leave. A leave shall not be granted to any employee to accept other employment unless the leave is to accept employment at a charter school as provided in paragraph (5) below. Accepting employment while on a leave of absence cancels the leave automatically. The person on leave will be notified that he or she must return to work with the School Board immediately, resign or be terminated. The Superintendent shall develop procedures to implement leave provisions. Charter School Leave. An employee may be granted leave to accept employment at a charter school in St. Lucie County in accordance with the following provisions: Teachers. Teachers may apply for leave to work at a charter school. The School Board will not require resignation of teachers desiring to work at a charter school. Teachers granted such leave by the School Board are not required to be on a continuing or professional services contract and shall not be subject to the seven (7) continuous years’ service requirement. Should a teacher on leave elect to return to work at the District, the teacher shall return to the teacher’s former position or a comparable position for which the teacher is qualified. * * * Method to Request Leave. An application to request leave to accept employment in a charter school shall be submitted using the procedures specified in Policy 6.501(1). For ten month instructional personnel, an application to request leave to accept employment at a charter school shall be submitted to the principal at least forty-five (45) days prior to the first day of work for the school year . . . . Insurance and Retirement Benefits. It shall be the sole responsibility of the charter school site to provide insurance and retirement benefits to charter school employees . . . . * * * Notice of Intent to Return. Employees on charter school leave shall give the School Board written notice of their intent to return at least sixty (60) days prior to the beginning of the semester they wish to return. Requirement for Annual Renewal. Charter school leave must be renewed annually. It is the sole responsibility of the employee on leave to submit an annual written letter notice of leave to the Superintendent or designee, and a copy of the annual written letter notice of leave to the employee’s school principal or immediate supervisor, as applicable, on or before April 1 of each year if they wish to renew their charter school leave for the following school year. Employees who do not submit the required annual leave form on or before April 1st will be considered to have voluntarily terminated their employment, and will no longer be eligible for any benefits or other consideration under this leave policy. (Emphasis supplied.) 11. Rule 6.50*+ lists sections 1001.41, 1012.22, and 1012.33 as its statutory authority, and lists sections 1001.43, 1002.33(12)(e), 1012.22, 1012.61, 1012.63, and 1012.66 as the laws it implements. No reference to authority granted by the Florida Constitution is identified. Rule 6.50*+ provides that if a teacher working for the School Board wishes to work at a charter school within St. Lucie County, that teacher must apply for permission to do so. However, the definition of a leave of absence in the first paragraph of rule 6.50*+ specifically provides that a leave of absence allowed under the rule is for a specified period of time “with the right to return to employment upon the expiration of leave.” By its terms, the rule does not appear to encompass those employees whose status is “suspended without pay,” given that those employees who are suspended without pay do not necessarily have the right to return to employment upon expiration of leave. Rule 6.50*+ also provides that an application for charter school leave shall be provided to the teacher’s principal at least 45 days before the beginning of the school year. For teachers on suspension without pay or who are not assigned to a particular school, there is no principal to whom the application can be given. The rule does not specify an alternative. Instead, Mr. Clements stated that it would be up to Ms. Jones (and presumably, anyone in her circumstance) to ask where to submit an application for charter school leave. The School Board interprets rule 6.50*+ as applying to all employees, regardless of their status. Rule 6.50*+ does not indicate what criteria would be used for determining if an employee’s application for leave should be granted. Mr. Clements testified that the decision is made on a case-by-case basis. He also testified that had Ms. Jones applied for charter school leave, he would not have recommended that her request be approved, because as a teacher on unpaid suspension, she is not in good standing with the School District. Nothing in rule 6.50*+ alerts Ms. Jones, or any other teacher in her circumstances, that her suspension without pay would be a basis for disapproval of an application for charter school leave. Nothing in the rule alerts any applicant of the criteria to be considered for the grant or denial of a requested leave of absence. The consideration of a staff member’s current disciplinary status is not an unreasonable consideration for the Superintendent or for the School District. It is not, however, included in the rule as a basis for deciding whether a request for charter school leave should be approved or denied.
The Issue Whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-2.0020(4) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because of conflict with section 1008.34(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016), or because the rule will be arbitrary and capricious in its application and administration.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Florida Association of Independent Charter Schools is a Florida non-profit corporation. The association is substantially affected by the proposed amended rule. Petitioner Aspira Raul Arnaldo Martinez Charter School is a charter school in Miami-Dade County and is currently serving 573 students. Its school grades over the past two consecutive years are: “D” for 2014-2015 and “D” for 2015-2016. If the proposed amended rule becomes effective and the school receives a school grade lower than “C” for 2016-2017, the school will not be eligible for the 2017-2018 Capital Outlay Appropriation. The school is substantially affected by the proposed amended rule. Petitioner Miami Community Charter Middle School is a charter middle school in Miami-Dade County currently serving 283 students. It is a Title I school serving 99 percent Free and Reduced Lunch. Its school grades over the past two consecutive years are: “D” for 2014-2015 and “D” for 2015-2016. If the proposed amended rule becomes effective and the school receives a school grade lower than “C” for 2016-2017, the school will not be eligible for the 2017-2018 Capital Outlay Appropriation. The school is substantially affected by the proposed amended rule. Respondent State of Florida Board of Education is “the chief implementing and coordinating body of public education in Florida . . . [with] the authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of law conferring duties upon it for the improvement of the state system of K-20 public education . . . .” § 1001.02(1), Fla. Stat. Respondent Florida Department of Education “act[s] as an administrative and supervisory agency under the implementation direction of the State Board of Education.” § 1001.20(1), Fla. Stat. “The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state . . . , and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system except for the State University System.” § 1001.10(1), Fla. Stat. Charter school capital outlay funding is the state’s contribution to capital funding for charter schools. A charter school’s governing body may use such funds for the following purposes: purchase of real property, construction of school facilities, purchase or lease of permanent or relocatable school facilities, purchase of vehicles, renovation, repair, maintenance of school facilities, and insurance for school facilities. § 1013.62(3), Fla. Stat. The charter school statute, section 1002.33, Florida Statutes, specifically authorizes the State Board of Education to adopt rules which address charter school eligibility for capital outlay funds. “The Department of Education, after consultation with school districts and charter school directors, shall recommend that the State Board of Education adopt rules to implement specific subsections of this section.” § 1002.33(28), Fla. Stat. One of the specific subsections of section 1002.33 is subsection (19), entitled “CAPITAL OULAY FUNDING.” Subsection (19) provides, in pertinent part: “Charter schools are eligible for capital outlay funds pursuant to s. 1013.62.” Each year, the Commissioner of Education is required to allocate charter school capital outlay funds, if any are appropriated by the Legislature, to eligible charter schools.1/ One of the eligibility criteria, which is at the center of the parties’ dispute, is set forth in section 1013.62(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes: “Have satisfactory student achievement based on state accountability standards applicable to the charter school.” The 2016 Florida Legislature amended section 1013.62, but it did not amend the statute regarding satisfactory student achievement. With regard to satisfactory student achievement, presently effective rule 6A-2.0020 provides: (2) The eligibility requirement for satisfactory student achievement under Section 1013.62, F.S., shall be determined in accordance with the language in the charter contract and the charter school’s current school improvement plan if the school has a current school improvement plan. A charter school receiving an “F” grade designation through the state accountability system, as defined in Section 1008.34, F.S., shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding for the school year immediately following the designation. On February 28, 2017, Respondents published a Notice of Proposed Rule, which proposed to amend rule 6A-2.0020. On March 22, 2017, the State Board of Education approved the proposed amendments to rule 6A-2.0020. As approved, the portion of the proposed rule which addresses satisfactory student achievement provides: (4) Satisfactory student achievement under Section 1013.62(1)(a)3., F.S., shall be determined by the school’s most recent grade designation or school improvement rating from the state accountability system as defined in Sections 1008.34 and 1008.341, F.S. Satisfactory student achievement for a school that does not receive a school grade or a school improvement rating, including a school that has not been in operation for at least one school year, shall be based on the student performance metrics in the charter school’s charter agreement. Allocations shall not be distributed until such time as school grade designations are known. For the 2016-2017 school year, a charter school that receives a grade designation of “F” shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, a charter school that receives a grade designation of “F” or two (2) consecutive grades lower than a “C” shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding. Beginning in the 2017-2018 school year, a charter school that receives a school improvement rating of “Unsatisfactory” shall not be eligible for capital outlay funding. Proposed amended rule 6A-2.0020(4), if adopted, will provide the standard for what constitutes failure to meet satisfactory student achievement for purposes of receiving capital outlay funding. A school with a grade of “F” or two (2) consecutive grades lower than a “C” will be ineligible for funding. Proposed amended rule 6A-2.0020(4), if adopted, will allow a charter school with a single “D” grade to continue receiving capital outlay funds for the next fiscal year. On April 5, 2017, Respondents published a Notice of Change for a technical change for rule 6A-2.0020, referencing the following rulemaking authority for the rule: sections 1001.02(1), (2)(n); 1002.33(19), (28); 1013.02(2)(a); and 1013.62(5).
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Hillsborough County School Board (School Board), erred in denying the Petitioner's request to consolidate its two charter contracts into one charter agreement.
Findings Of Fact Trinity School is a Florida corporation that owns and operates two charter schools in Hillsborough County, Florida. The two charter schools are known as Trinity Lower School for Children and Trinity Upper School. Trinity Lower School for Children provides education for 425 students in kindergarten through fitth grade. Trinity Upper School serves 225 students in sixth through eighth grades. The School Board is constitutionally and statutorily charged with the operation and supervision of all K through 12 public schools in Hillsborough County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.32(2) and 1003.02. The two Trinity charter schools are part of the public school system and are sponsored by the School Board. § 1002.33. Trinity School was formed by a group of educators and parents of children who had attended a private Roman Catholic School that was closing. In 1999, Trinity School submitted its application to form a K through eighth grade charter school. Its application was approved by the School Board, and Trinity began operation in 1999. Trinity School's population grew steadily from its inception and in 2003, Trinity School sought to purchase a building across the street from its campus. Ms. O'Dea, the founder, principal, chief executive, and educational officer for Trinity School, explained that Trinity School learned that it would be eligible for additional federal start-up money, if Trinity School divided its charter into two separate charters. By dividing the original charter and creating a new charter school for the middle school, Trinity School was able to obtain at least $450,000.00, in federal start-up funds which was used to help purchase a building across the street from the original school, grow the number of classes, as well as increase the number of programs and teachers. In 2003, Trinity School applied for a charter for the Trinity Upper School, which would serve sixth through eighth grades. The School Board approved the charter for the Upper School, and Trinity School was able to receive the federal start-up money. The Trinity Upper School began operating under its own charter in 2004. Although two separate charters, both Trinity Schools are operated by the same parent corporation, follow the same Bank Street School principles of educational development, and are located in the same location. Further, the record showed through the testimony of Ms. Difranco, Trinity School's director of finance, that the two charter schools "actually function as one school[,] [w]e share buildings; we share a media center; we share staff; we use one accounting system." On April 3, 2008, Trinity School wrote the School Board's representative to request a change in Trinity School's financial reporting to the school district. Trinity School's letter recognized that both schools operated "under the fiscal umbrella of The Tampa School Development Cooperation [sic], but the schools' finances are reported to the district separately." Trinity School advised the School Board representative that combining the schools' financial reports would benefit "both our accounting practices and the school district." On May 15, 2008, Ms. Hodgens, the School Board's supervisor of charter schools, wrote Ms. O'Dea: After consulting with the Department of Education regarding your request to combine Trinity School for Children and Trinity Upper School, the district has been advised that you are able to combine the two schools. I will present your request to the Hillsborough County School Board regarding the combination of the two schools during your schools' contract renewal process. On March 15, 2010, the School Board wrote Ms. O'Dea concerning the renewal of the charters. The School Board informed Ms. O'Dea that "Trinity School for Children/Trinity Upper is scheduled for Contract Renewal Review[,]" and requested that a list of materials be provided for the review. On June 28, 2010, Ms. Hodgens, referencing her earlier letter dated May 15, 2008, wrote Ms. O'Dea concerning Trinity School's request to combine the charters during the contract renewal period. Specifically, Ms. Hodgens wrote: After several conversations with district staff, there is no educational benefit for students by combining the two schools. Due to this fact, the Superintendent will not be making this recommendation to the School Board at the time of your contract renewal. Trinity School and the School Board brought their consolidation dispute before the Department of Education under section 1002.33(6)(h). On March 30, 2011, Dr. Eric Smith, the Florida Commissioner of Education, entered a Mediation Report of Impasse, stating that the parties had reached an impasse and that the matter could not be settled through mediation, pursuant to section 1002.33(6)(h). Ms. Difranco, who has been Trinity Schools' director of finance for the past two years, credibly testified that both schools functioned administratively as one school, but were required to file separate fiscal reports. Furthermore, she credibly testified that creating the two separate fiscal reports for each school, results in Trinity School's accountants and personnel having to perform additional duties of separating the relevant data by school. Ms. Difranco credibly testified that she had conducted a cost analysis comparing the costs of treating the two schools as separate charters with an estimated cost of operating under one charter. According to Ms. Difranco, the savings to Trinity School would be approximately $123,000.00, a year. The largest bulk of the savings would come from a reduction in the administrative fee Trinity School pays to the School Board to administer the charter schools. Ms. Difranco estimated that the administrative fee paid to the School Board would reduce by approximately $65,000.00, a year. The reason for the reduction in administrative fees received by the School Board is the legislature's enactment of section 1002.33(20)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). Section 1002.33(20)(a), in part, changed the formula used to calculate the administrative fee charged to charter schools by district school boards. This change in the formula for funding results in a reduction of the amount of money that the School Board will receive as administrative fees from Trinity School if the two charters are combined into one charter. The School Board, in making its decision about whether or not to grant the request to combine the two charters into one charter, considered the fact that it would receive less money from the administrative fees, if the two charters were combined. Both Trinity Schools have received from the State of Florida "A" ratings and are respected charter schools. Trinity Schools, however, have not been designated as "high-performing" charter schools by the Commissioner of Education, as defined by section 1002.331, Florida Statutes (2011). The reason that Trinity Schools’ two charters do not meet the statutory definition of "high-performing" charter school under section 1002.331 is due to past negative fund balances. The record, however, showed that Trinity Schools are on the verge of eliminating the financial difficulties. Specifically, the testimony showed that in 2009-2010 school year, Trinity Schools had a negative fund balance. However, the testimony showed through Ms. Difranco that for school years 2010-2011, and the current school year 2011-2012, that Trinity Schools have met the fiscal requirements.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated March 14, 1995, seeks termination of Karen Denbo’s annual contract of employment pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, based on the following alleged falsifications of her Orange County Public Schools employment application: misrepresenting the reasons for separation from her last public school assignment; falsely stating her prior employment positions; and falsely identifying her immediate supervisor in her last public school assignment. The issues for disposition in this case are whether Karen Denbo committed the alleged violations and if so, whether discipline pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact From approximately 1966, until her suspension without pay by the Orange County School Board in March 1995, Karen Denbo was employed in various teaching and administrative capacities by school boards in Indiana, Georgia and Florida. She also worked on a grant project at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, in 1993 and 1994. On July 6, 1994, Karen Denbo submitted an employment application to the Orange County Public Schools. Her signature appears below this printed statement on the form: I certify that all information given on this application is true and complete. I agree, if employed, to abide by all school board rules, regulations and policies, either published or in effect by usage, and all rules, regulations and laws of the State of Florida as may be required by Florida Statutes, Florida State Board of Education, and the School Board of Orange County, Florida. I understand that any misrepresentation, omission or incorrect statement of facts called for in this application is cause for a refusal to hire me or my termination if I am hired. It is understood that as a condition of employment, I must have on file an acceptable health certificate, tuberculin test and medical history form. (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1) The application includes, on the form and again on a separate work history sheet, this information regarding Karen Denbo’s employment in Brevard County: YEAR NAME/ ADDRESS OF SCHOOL GRADE OR SUBJECT NO. OF MONTHS PRINCIPAL/ SUPERVISOR REASON FOR LEAVING 86/92 Brevard Director/ 72 Jerry Budget cut Co. Public Coordinator Copeland backs Schools EEO/AA position Melbourne, Florida Guidance Counselor eliminated (Petitioner’s Exhibit 1) After an interview in August 1997, Ms. Denbo was hired by Orange County Public Schools as a counselor at Chickasaw Elementary School. Gail Pender was the principal who recommended Karen Denbo for the position. Karen Denbo’s duties included serving as a staffing coordinator for exceptional education services at the school. Sometime after it hired Karen Denbo, Orange County Public Schools learned that her employment history in Brevard County was substantially more complicated than was reflected on the small spaces provided on the application form. The whole truth would have taken pages to explain. Karen Denbo worked for the Brevard County School Board from August 6, 1986, until June 30, 1992, when her employment contract was not renewed. Her immediate supervisor for the first four years was Dr. Jerry Copeland, assistant superintendent for personnel. She worked in the district personnel office for five years with various, but similar duties: personnel specialist, administrator, EEO compliance officer, and coordinator of the Florida Educational Equity Act. Her formal position title for funding purposes was something general like “personnel specialist, administrative contract.” In the 1990-91 school year, Daniel Scheuerer was Karen Denbo’s immediate supervisor. When her position was deleted for the 1991-92 school year and the duties assigned to other district employees, Karen Denbo transferred to Challenger Elementary School as a guidance counselor in July 1991. Julia Bumgarner was principal at Challenger Elementary School and was Karen Denbo’s immediate supervisor for the 1991-92 school year. At the close of that school year Ms. Bumgarner advised Karen Denbo that she was not recommending her for reappointment for the next year because her performance was unsatisfactory. Mrs. Bumgarner provided a written evaluation to Karen Denbo, dated April 29, 1992, which stated: Due to the overall unsatisfactory performance rating as described herein, I am not recommending your reappointment for the 1992-93 school year. (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10, Bumgarner deposition) An interim evaluation dated February 19, 1992, had also been unsatisfactory and had warned that failure to show substantial improvement by May 1, 1992, would result in Karen Denbo’s not being recommended for a subsequent annual contract. Karen Denbo responded in writing to both evaluations. Included in those responses and included in her testimony at hearing was her assertion that the evaluations were part of the Brevard County School Board’s continued harassment of her in retaliation for her lawsuit against the school board and various individuals. The lawsuit to which Karen Denbo referred was initiated on August 16, 1990, with her charge of discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The charge included her allegations that assistant superintendent, Jerry Copeland, sexually assaulted and harassed her. Subsequent charges of retaliation were filed, as well as follow-up lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuits named as defendants the School Board of Orange County, Jerry Copeland, Superintendent Abraham L. Collinsworth, and Daniel T. Scheuerer, individually and in their official capacities. Karen Denbo filed a third charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on February 11, 1993, and filed another federal lawsuit thereafter. All of the claims by Karen Denbo against the Brevard County School Board were settled with a general release dated June 30, 1993. The settlement agreement provides, in pertinent part: The Defendants will pay Plaintiff the sum of $325,000 and agree to the following conditions: 1) annual reviews for 91 and 92 will be removed from present file and placed in file to be maintained by School Board Attorney; 2) annual reviews will be prepared by last supervisor for 87, 88, 89 and 90 to reflect satisfactory performance; 3) Indiana University placement form will be filled out by Copeland and reflect satisfactory performance. (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) In abbreviating her Brevard County work history on the Orange County Public Schools application, Karen Denbo relied, in part, on the settlement agreement. Jerry Copeland, her supervisor for four of the six years, was required to provide a satisfactory performance statement for Karen Denbo’s Indiana University placement file. She knows that he was not her “immediate supervisor” for the final two years, but the more recent two annual reviews, clouded by the pendancy of the lawsuits and Karen Denbo’s claims of retaliation, were removed from her personnel file. Karen Denbo also relied on her understanding that in both June 1991 and June 1992 her positions were eliminated for budget reasons. This understanding was bolstered by her knowledge of a newspaper article dated August 6, 1992, reporting that Karen Denbo was “one of the 88 annual-contract teachers who lost their jobs to budget cuts.” (Respondent’s Exhibit 4) The same article quoted the teachers’ union president as stating that the job cut was to make sure Karen Denbo was out of the system. By fall 1992, Karen Denbo began having negative interactions with her Chickasaw Elementary School principal, Gail Pender, in Orange County. Karen Denbo attributes the problems to Ms. Pender’s finding out that Karen Denbo was the person who had the charges against the School Board of Brevard County. In December 1994, the Orange County School Board placed Karen Denbo on relief duty with pay, pending investigation into allegations of falsifications of her application. She was suspended without pay in February 1995, and was recommended for termination on March 14, 1995. The administrative complaint by Superintendent, Dr. Donald Shaw alleges: The Respondent, Karen Denbo, at all times material to this Administrative Complaint, was employed as a guidance counselor by the School Board of Orange County, Florida. That Respondent, Karen Denbo, holds an annual contract of employment with Petitioner. That on or about July 6, 1994, Respondent, Karen Denbo, did falsify her Orange County Public Schools employment application which is just cause for termination of Respondent’s employment contract with the School Board. The falsifications are: Misrepresenting the reason for separation from her last public school assignment. Falsely stating her prior employment positions. Falsely identifying her immediate supervisor in her last public school assignment. That actions by the Respondent, Karen Denbo, constitute just cause for termination of her employment agreement with the School Board, for reasons including but not limited to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct, a violation of the code of ethics for professionals in the education profession in the State of Florida and a violation of the terms of her employment with the School Board of Orange County, Florida. Such grounds are sufficient to sever the contract status of Respondent and to terminate her employment with the School Board of Orange County, Florida. When Karen Denbo stated on her employment application that her position was eliminated through budget cuts, this was the truth, if not the whole truth. She had ample basis to assume that her positions for 1991-92 and 1992-93 were eliminated. For example, and in addition to the news article and statements of her union president, Karen Denbo had a copy of this February 25, 1993, letter from Howard Hickman, Director of Personnel Services, Brevard County School Board, to the superintendent of an Indiana school district who was seeking a reference: Dear Superintendent Fulk: Please find my response to your recent letter of inquiry regarding the employment history of Ms. Karen Denbo with the School Board of Brevard County, FL. Ms. Denbo began her employment with the School Board of Brevard County on 08/06/86 as a Compliance Officer/Personnel Specialist. Her primary responsibilities were to represent the school district in issues of compliance and equity. Due to budget consideration, the position of Compliance Officer, along with several other district positions, was eliminated for the 1991-92 school year. Compliance and equity issues were assigned to other district employees. Ms. Denbo transferred to Challenger Elementary School as a guidance counselor in July, 1991. Based upon staffing priorities at Challenger 7 Elementary School, Ms. Denbo was not reappointed for the 1992-93 school year. (Respondent’s Exhibit 1) In his deposition, Howard Hickman responded to questions by counsel for the Orange County School Board: By Mr. Kruppenbacher: Q. Mr. Hickman, am I correct that in School Board language, or School Boardese...the non- renewal of an annual contract teacher is not considered to be disciplinary action but is considered, to be the School Boards’ right to simply non-renew? A. That would be my understanding. (Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, p. 21, ll. 7-16) Karen Denbo’s designation of Jerry Copeland as her “principal/supervisor” was likewise a justified over- simplification. He was her supervisor for four years, and the settlement agreement super-imposed him above or replaced, the two other subordinate supervisors whose roles were clouded by the charges of retaliation. Jerry Copeland’s employment recommendation, in Karen Denbo’s possession and attached to her Orange County School Board application, is consistent with his role: July 28, 1993 EMPLOYMENT RECOMMENDATION RE: Ms. Karen K. Denbo To Whom it May Concern: Ms. Karen K. Denbo was employed on August 6, 1986 as Compliance Officer. She bravely accepted the challenge of this assignment even though her prior experience was one of school based administration and/or guidance/student services. To accept this assignment with such confidence was appropriately interpreted by this agency as being an individual who is academically competent, professionally aggressive and with a full capacity to grasp a new job which is controlled by regulations, statutes, administrative rules, board rules, labor contracts, case law, past practice, and a list of other detailed items to numerous to mention. During this time of service, Ms. Denbo has responded to more employment charges and complaints on behalf of the district in a shorter period of time than all of her predecessors combined. To date, every case has been dismissed without a finding of probable cause, settled without economic impact on the district or referred to another agency due to circumstances beyond the control of the school system. Ms. Denbo has an unusual gift for the written word. These materials contain, at times, an unbelievable degree of materials requiring hours of analytical compilation. It is, therefore, with pleasure that I offer this unequivocal employment recommendation. To find these talents in an individual in my opinion, is unique and offers a very promising opportunity for your agency. Sincerely, Jerry P. Copeland Assistant Superintendent Personnel Services (Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit 1) Finally, the descriptions of Karen Denbo’s positions in Brevard County on her application form are plainly descriptions of her functions, rather than formal position titles. She was a guidance counselor and revealed that; she also was an EEO/affirmative action compliance officer, and based on her own uncontroverted testimony and the several recommendations attached to her application, she directed the Brevard County School Board’s compliance in those areas. There is no evidence that she was one of several individuals performing the same function under a separate “director.”
Recommendation BASED on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Orange County issue a Final Order dismissing its charges against Karen Denbo and providing back pay from the date of her suspension without pay through the end of the 1994-95 contract year. DONE AND ORDERD this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire Kruppenbacher and Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 3471 Orlando, Florida 32801-3471 James G. Brown, Esquire Brown and Green, P.A. Post Office Box 3108 Orlando, Florida 32802-3108 G. Ware Cornell, Esquire Victoria Park Centre, Suite 204 1401 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Thomas H. Yardley, Esquire Building C2 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Dr. Donald Shaw, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
