Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Richard P. Rost, was employed by the Board as the principal at Rock Lake Middle School. During the week of October 7 through 11, 1991, the Seminole County School District was to perform an FTE survey in accordance with state-mandated guidelines. The purpose of the survey was to perform a head count of the students enrolled in the public school system and to designate an FTE value according to the type of student. The results of the survey were utilized by the state to appropriately distribute funding among the school districts. Students enrolled in special classes receive a higher weighted FTE than those enrolled in regular classes. Teachers are required to execute rolls and to certify the names of the students enrolled in their classes for each period of the surveyed school day. The pertinent survey date for Rock Lake Middle School (Rock Lake) was October 11, 1991. On that date teachers at Rock Lake filled out FTE forms that listed the students enrolled in their classes for each period of the school day. On the morning of October 11, 1991, Respondent administratively reassigned thirteen students from their regular class assignments to the in- school suspension program at Rock Lake. None of the students so assigned met the criteria for placement into the in-school suspension program. Respondent placed the students into the in-school suspension program so that when the FTE survey was performed, the records would show that thirteen students were enrolled in that section. The FTE weight for a student enrolled in an in-school suspension program is greater than the FTE weight for physical education. Several of the students assigned to the in-school suspension program on October 11, 1991, were pulled from their regular physical education classes. Respondent has admitted that he made the class changes on the survey date but maintains he was authorized to do so since the students would receive an educational benefit from the placement, and since the placement might be considered a resource period for the students. Further, Respondent maintains that Willie Holt, the director of middle school education, had indicated that it was mandatory for Rock Lake to have fifteen students in its tutorial program and thirteen students in the dropout prevention program. In order to be placed in the in-school suspension program, a student must have a referral for misconduct that would normally warrant an out-of-school suspension. Additionally, upon completion of the referral form, the student and his parents must complete an in-school suspension contract acknowledging and accepting the placement. No paperwork was completed for the students administratively assigned by Respondent on October 11, 1991. Because students were erroneously placed in the in-school suspension program, they were surveyed based upon the FTE weighted rate of 1.707. Accordingly, unless caught by the state through an audit, or voluntarily disclosed through an amended FTE report, Seminole County Schools would receive a higher level of funding than it was entitled. While Respondent could not personally gain from the FTE report and increased funding, his actions placed the Board in a position of liability for the improper survey results. More critical to this case, however, is the fact that Respondent has never conceded that he made a mistake in placing the students in the in-school suspension program. Respondent directed his staff to respond to the inquiries about the placements even though he knew, or should have known, that the students placed in the in-school suspension program did not meet the criteria for same. Specifically, Ms. Schalls, the guidance director, wrote a letter explaining the assignments for Respondent's signature as a result of the inquiries related to the placements. Because Respondent directed him to accept the students into the class, Mr. Deyling, the in-school suspension teacher, incorrectly completed the FTE forms on the survey date. Because Respondent directed her to pull students from classes to send them to the in-school suspension class, Ms. Shalls, the guidance department director, executed passes for the thirteen students. To her credit, when questioned regarding the appropriate paperwork to support the assignment, Ms. Shalls would not complete the forms. The guidance staff had never, prior to this incident, placed students in the in-school suspension class. Respondent did not direct any school personnel to falsify school records. There was no drop out prevention program in effect at Rock Lake on October 11, 1991, which would have allowed Respondent to administratively assign the students to in-school suspension. The Respondent disregarded the rights of students by placing them in the in-school suspension class when he knew they did not meet the criteria for that placement. The Respondent failed to exercise good judgment in placing the students in the in-school suspension class when he knew they did not meet the criteria for that placement. The Respondent's effectiveness has been seriously impaired by the acts described above. Such acts constitute misconduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Seminole County, Florida enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and terminating his employment as a principal at Rock Lake. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-1353 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 10, 12 through 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30 through 33, 35, 40, 41, and 44 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 19 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the record. Rost maintained he had the authority to make the placements complained of; in truth, he knew or should have known such placements were inappropriate. Paragraph 21 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 26 is rejected as hearsay or irrelevant. Paragraph 29 is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraphs 34, 36, and 37, it is accepted that Respondent placed the students in the program inappropriately; otherwise rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. Paragraphs 38 and 39 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent requested that an explanation be drafted, he did not request any employee to falsify records or misrepresent what had occurred. Paragraphs 42 and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the- evidence in that Respondent did not direct employees to violate the law. He directed the guidance team to choose students who might benefit from the decisions film to be placed in the class. That such action constituted error is based upon Respondent's indifference to the criteria for in school suspension and his goal of achieving a number in that program for FTE purposes. With the addition of the phrase "or should have known" after the word "knew" paragraph 45 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1, 24, 25, 41, 70, 71, 74, and 80 are accepted. Paragraphs 2 through 10 are rejected as argument, contrary to the weight of credible evidence, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted that Respondent would not financially gain personally from the FTE survey; however, that he would seek to file a false survey suggests that he perceived some benefit from doing so. Otherwise, when questioned initially about the matter he would have confessed error and acted to correct the problem. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence except as to the statement that Mr. Evans was absent on the survey date. Paragraph 14 is rejected as recitation of testimony not accepted as an ultimate fact of this case. Paragraphs 15 through 18 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 19 through 23 are accepted only to the extent that they suggest Respondent did not direct employees to after-the-fact fabricate records to justify the placement of the students; otherwise, rejected as recitation of testimony, irrelevant, argument or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 26 through 38 are rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the weight of credible evidence, repetitive, or argument. The first sentence of paragraph 39 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 42 through 69 are rejected as irrelevant, recitation of testimony not accepted as ultimate fact, contrary to the weight of credible evidence, argument, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Respondent had, prior to the incident complained of, enjoyed a good reputation in the school community and Rock Lake had had no major problems. Had Respondent acted differently in this instance, these proceedings would not have been required as his judgment would not have been made suspect. Paragraphs 72 and 73 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 75 through 79 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraphs 81 through 90 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or argument. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Ned N. Julian, Jr. STENSTROM, McINTOSH, JULIAN, COLBERT, WHIGHAM & SIMMONS, P.A. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Joseph A. Rosier P.O. Box 95017 Lake Mary, Florida 32795 Dr. Paul Hagerty Superintendent of Schools Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment by the Pinellas County School Board as a painter in the School Board’s Maintenance Department for any or all of the following: excessive absenteeism, failure to report absences according to established procedures, failure to provide required medical documentation for absences, tardiness, insubordination, driving under the influence of alcohol and criminal conviction of driving while intoxicated?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, is the authority that operates, controls and supervises all free public schools in the Pinellas County School District. Dwayne Goodrow has been employed as a painter in the Maintenance Department for the Pinellas County School Board since April 18, 1989. His work has always been satisfactory and sometimes better than satisfactory. Over the years of his employment, however, he has had chronic and serious attendance problems. Absenteeism, Attendance and Other Performance Factors On August 2, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." The memorandum stated that since the beginning of the school year, Mr. Goodrow had been absent an excessive number of times, including 17 hours of leave without pay. It informed Mr. Goodrow that, "[t]his absenteeism is unacceptable and you must make an immediate and permanent correction of this behavior." (Petitioner's Ex. No. 1) It further advised him that the memorandum would be placed in his file as a record that he had been counseled about the matter and that he fully understood that any reoccurrence of excessive absenteeism would result in a letter of reprimand. The memorandum warns: In the event you receive a letter of reprimand and the excessive absenteeism continues, you will become subject to more severe disciplinary action, which could include suspension or dismissal. Id. The memorandum is signed first by Mr. Goodrow and then by school board personnel: Mr. Goodrow's foreman and general foreman as well as the Superintendent of the School District. On October 5, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for excessive absenteeism. The letter informs Mr. Goodrow of his General Foreman's belief that he has not realized the seriousness of his problem with absenteeism because in the interim since the August 2 memorandum he had been absent 29 and ½ additional hours. The letter warns, "if your absenteeism continues, it will be cause to recommend you for suspension or dismissal." Petitioner's Ex. No.2. It concludes, "Your signature below will acknowledge that you have received and understand this letter of reprimand." Id. Just as the August 2, 1990 memorandum, the letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow and school board personnel. On a Supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal signed by Mr. Goodrow January 18, 1991, he received a rating of unsatisfactory in the area of attendance and "needs improvement" in the area of punctuality. The remarks section of the appraisal states with regard to attendance, "[h]as received letters warning him of this, must be corrected." Petitioner's Ex. No. 17. The appraisal also states, "Dwayne has good painting abilities and knowledge, can be trusted to complete any job given him." Id. On June 10, 1991, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." With the exception of stating that he had taken 15 hours of leave without pay, the memorandum is identical to the August 2, 1990 memorandum. On a supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal dated February 14, 1992, Mr. Goodrow was again rated unsatisfactory under the performance factor of attendance. The remarks section reflects that he received counseling on December 19, 1991, for frequent tardiness but also that "[j]ob knowledge is adequate," "[c]ompletes assigned work on time," "[h]as the ability to be a self-starter," and "[c]an be a good team worker." Petitioner's Ex. No. 16. On September 15, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received an Attendance Deficiency Notification Letter. The letter states "[y]ou are required to bring in doctor's documentation of your illness on all further sick leave absence requests." Petitioner's Ex. No. 4. Although there is a place on the letter for Mr. Goodrow's signature and a notation that signature by the employee does not imply agreement with statements in the letter, the letter reflects that Mr. Goodrow refused to sign it. On October 3, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received a Record of Counseling. It noted deficiencies in his performance in that, INSUBORDINATION - You were told to furnish doctors excuses for any sick leave taken as per letter dated 9/15/94. On 9/26/94 you used 2 hours sick leave and failed to provide Doctor's excuse upon request of your Foreman. Petitioner's Ex. No. 5. To bring his performance to the satisfactory level, Mr. Goodrow was advised he would have to supply a doctor's documentation of illness whenever he took sick leave in the future. On February 17, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was rated as "Needing Improvement," in the area of attendance on his performance appraisal by his supervisor. The remarks section of the appraisal reflects that he was counseled for not following leave policy but also that "Dwayne has shown a more positive attitude recently, he has the potential to progress." Petitioner's Ex. No. 15. Furthermore, Mr. Goodrow was rated "better than satisfactory, in the area of "job knowledge." Consistent with this rating, in the remarks section, the following appears, "Dwayne exhibits his job knowledge by identifying problems and solving them . . . ." Id. The potential for progress noted in February did not last long. On March 24, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for insubordination for failing to provide a doctor's excuse for sick leave absences contrary to previous instructions. The letter warned that failure to provide doctor's excuses in the future to justify sick leave will result in "further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment." Petitioner's Ex. No. 6. Over the next 6 months, Mr. Goodrow began again to show progress. By early September, 1995, his attendance had "improved considerably," Petitioner's Ex. No. 7, and the requirement for a doctor's excuse for every sick leave absence was lifted. The procedure for reporting absences in the School Board's Maintenance Department is for employees to call in at least one-half hour prior to their normal starting time. There is an answering machine upon which a message can be recorded when there is no person available to take the call. Shortly after the lifting of the requirement for a doctor's excuse to justify sick leave, Mr. Goodrow, on Wednesday, September 13, 1995, was absent from work. He did not call in consistent with the procedure for reporting absences. He was absent again two days later. In addition to the failure to call in on September 13, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was absent without calling in on three other days in the fall of 1995: October 18 and 26, and November 9. Each time he failed to call in, Mr. Goodrow was verbally warned by Trades Foreman Al Myers of the requirement for calling in and was given a review of proper procedure. On December 14, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow proper procedure with regard to the four absences in the fall of 1995. The letter was the result of an agreement with Mr. Goodrow that the letter was the appropriate response by the maintenance department for the absences and failure to follow procedure. A stipulation was added, however, to the agreement: "[A]nother attendance incident within one year will result in recommendation for 'Time off without pay' or possible 'Dismissal'.". Petitioner's Ex. No. 7. The letter concludes, "Also, as of this date you are again required to provide medical proof of your [inability to attend work] . . . and you are required to notify your supervisor prior to the start of work shift you are going to be absent." Id. The letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow. On February 26, 1996, Mr. Goodrow and the School Board entered a Stipulation Agreement. The agreement reviewed Mr. Goodrow's performance appraisals for unsatisfactory attendance, and insubordination for taking sick leave without doctor's excuses. Furthermore, it stated that Mr. Goodrow: On December 15, 1995, . . . left work early without proper notification or required medical documentation. On January 3, 1996, Mr. Goodrow failed to report his absence according to established procedures, and on January 17, 1996, he failed to report his absence according to established procedures and requested 3.5 hours of sick leave without providing required medical documentation. Petitioner's Ex. No. 8. As an expression of regret and to affirm his commitment to notify his supervisor in the future regarding absences, Mr. Goodrow agreed to a three day suspension without pay effective March 19, 20 and 21, 1996. The stipulation also states that Mr. Goodrow, once again, understands that further problems could result in more serious disciplinary action, including dismissal. On April 16, 1996, Mr. Goodrow received a performance review finding him to have continued to demonstrate unsatisfactory attendance and judgment in that on March 6, 1996, he was late 3 hours with no explanation, on March 28, 1996, he was late one-half hour with no explanation, on April 3, 1996 he took eight hours sick leave without doctor's justification, on April 9, 1996, he was arrested and charged with DUI, and on April 11, 1996, he took eight hours sick leave without a doctor's justification. Driving While Intoxicated The job description for a painter employed with the Pinellas County School Board includes the requirement that the employee possess a valid State of Florida Class B commercial driver's license ("CDL"), to include "air brake" qualifications, and any other license as may be required by law. On March 30, 1996, while driving a motor vehicle off- duty, Mr. Goodrow was stopped by a law enforcement officer for failing to maintain his vehicle in a single lane of traffic. Deputy Howard Skaggs, a member of the Sheriff Department's DUI unit, was summoned to the scene to conduct filed sobriety tests to determine whether Mr. Goodrow was driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Skaggs smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the breath of Mr. Goodrow, who, in turn, admitted that he had consumed at least six beers at two different taverns. While at the roadside, three field sobriety tests were performed by Deputy Skaggs, all of which Mr. Goodrow failed. Deputy Skaggs concluded that Mr. Goodrow was without doubt impaired. At the jail, Mr. Goodrow was asked to submit to a breathalyzer. He refused with the statement that he had had too much to drink and the test would only incriminate him. Mr. Goodrow was arrested. On September 17, 1996, Mr. Goodrow entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for 12 months, required to enroll in DUI school, fined $1000.00, and his driver's license was revoked for one year. Without a driver's license and a CDL, Mr. Goodrow no longer meets the job description of a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. Notification of Dismissal On June 19, 1996, Mr. Goodrow was notified that Superintendent Hinesley would recommend to the School Board that he be dismissed due to excessive absenteeism and insubordination. The DUI conviction, not having yet occurred, was not, of course, a factor in the superintendent's decision. Comparison with Other Employees Brett Paul, a painter in the Maintenance Department like Mr. Goodrow, also had attendance problems very similar to Mr. Goodrow's. He was suspended for three days without pay on the very same dates as Mr. Goodrow. Since the March suspension, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, Mr. Paul's attendance has improved with the exception on an isolated instance in which his absence was due to a "major life event," the purchase of a house. He has not been convicted of DUI. Tom Appold was arrested for DUI during a time that he was employed as a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. After his conviction for DUI, he requested that he be allowed to transfer to another department, presumably because he could no longer meet the job description requirement that he hold a CDL. The request was honored and he is now employed by the School Board in another section of the Maintenance Department for which a CDL is not required. Mr. Appold, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, has never been reprimanded or suspended for attendance problems. His attendance has always been found by the School Board's Maintenance Department to be within acceptable limits. Alcoholism and a Change of Heart Mr. Goodrow is an alcoholic. His excessive absenteeism, refusal to follow proper procedures with regard to work absences, insubordination, driving while intoxicated, arrest and conviction for DUI, and virtually every other work problem he had experienced over his seven years of employment with the School Board's maintenance department stems from alcoholism. For example, many of the days he missed at work were days following dart tournaments the night before at local establishments that served alcohol. Until the aftermath of his DUI conviction, Mr. Goodrow was ashamed and embarrassed to admit he suffers alcoholism. Today, with the assistance of professional counseling required as condition of probation for the crime of which he has been convicted, Mr. Goodrow is able to admit and freely did so at hearing that he is an alcoholic. The ability to make this admission is a major step forward for Mr. Goodrow. It is unfortunate that Mr. Goodrow's ability to face up to his problem has come so late. Had he admitted the condition when he was encountering problems with attendance at work, there were a number of options available to him and the School Board short of poor performance appraisals, letters of reprimand and suspension. As Dr. Martha O'Howell , Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards testified, We would have talked to him about the extent of that drinking problem. We would have referred him to . . . Cigna, the health provider. At that time, there was no formalized EAP [Employee Assistance Program] in place that the employee could go directly to, but there was . . . substance abuse counselling (sic) through Cigna that was available. We would have referred him or put him in contact with our risk management department. We would have encouraged him to take a leave of absence while he was seeking treatment, (Tr. 78). depending on the nature of the treatment, the severity, the length and so forth. We would have worked with him to provide a medical leave of absence if that had become necessary. If Mr. Goodrow's suspension were lifted and his employment was reinstated, the School Board's Employee Assistance Program would be available now to help him cope with his alcoholism. School Board personnel are not willing to make such a recommendation, however, in light of all that has occurred in Mr. Goodrow's case. A supervisor in the Maintenance Department expressed concern over the precedent that would be set if Mr. Goodrow were allowed to return to work, particularly in the minds of employees who might think that conduct like Mr. Goodrow's resulted in no meaningful consequences on the part of the School Board. Contrary to the concern of the Maintenance Department, the action taken to date, a suspension without pay that has been in effect now for more than eight months, has resulted in very definite consequences to Mr. Goodrow. In the main, he has been unemployed. He has made reasonable efforts to gain employment. But the loss of his driver's license has held him back. At the time of hearing, what little money he had been able to earn from the time of his suspension was certainly far below what he would have earned had he not been suspended from the employment he had held for more than seven years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the suspension of Dwayne Goodrow be sustained by the Pinellas County School Board but that he be reinstated without back pay if adequate conditions for his return to work can be agreed-to by the parties. If conditions of reinstatement cannot be agreed-to, Mr. Goodrow should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 11th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Elihu H. Berman, Esquire Berman & Hobgood, P.A. 1525 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 34624
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an unpaid leave of absence from employment as a teacher of the Flagler School District, from July 1, 1996 until expiration of her commission as School Board member on November 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a teacher employed by the Flagler County School District. Petitioner has been employed for more than three years, has been recommended by the School Board and reappointed and has become eligible for, and has received, a Professional Services Contract with tenure. Petitioner has been employed by the Flagler County School System for six years. She is enrolled in the Florida Retirement System, and her eligible employment under that system consists entirely of her service in the Flagler County School System. Petitioner was appointed by the Governor as a School Board member on or about September 5, 1995. She had just begun School Year 1995-1996 as an elementary teacher at Bunnell Elementary School. Petitioner was appointed to serve as a School Board member until November 19, 1996. Her appointment expires upon the election and start of a member to fill the remaining two years of the term of a deceased member of the School Board. Following her appointment to the School Board, Petitioner applied for a leave of absence as teacher in order to take her position as a School Board member. Petitioner sought an unpaid leave of absence from the time of her appointment to the School Board until the end of the 1995-1996 School Year. The Superintendent recommended that her request be approved and the School Board approved it. At that time, the Superintendent made clear to her that any leave of absence beyond June 30, 1996 would be subject to the School Board's approval, notwithstanding the Superintendent's current or future recommendations. Petitioner's request for leave of absence near the commencement of School Year 1995-1996 presented no administrative inconvenience to the School District, and minimal disruption of the routine of her students. Petitioner was tendered renewal of her teaching contract for the 1996- 1997 School Year, apparently effective August 13, 1996. Petitioner timely applied to the Superintendent for an extension of her leave of absence as a teacher for that part of School Year 1996-1997 that overlapped the time up to the expiration of her term as a School Board member, November 19, 1996. The Superintendent recommended that Petitioner's request for extension of leave of absence without pay for the applicable portion of School Year 1996- 1997 be granted. In considering Petitioner's request for an extension of her leave of absence into School Year 1996-1997, the Superintendent considered the requirements of efficient operation of the School District, including tentative discussions with his staff about possible positions suitable to Petitioner's experience upon her projected return November 19, 1996 from her requested extended leave of absence. The position to which Petitioner has been appointed at Bunnell Elementary School commencing August 13, 1996 is not being held open by Respondent, but has been filled by another teacher irrespective of these proceedings. There is a tentatively identified position suitable to Petitioner's experience. Mr. Bowen, Director of Personnel, Transportation, and Insurance, opined that if the tentatively identified position were not filled until November 19, 1996, it might be disruptive to good education of the particular type of students targeted for the program. The School District has no imminent need to fill the tentatively identified position, but there is no guarantee it still will be available on November 19, 1996. In the interim, other positions may open through maternity leave, illness, death, etc. or they may not. On average, there are three or four teaching positions that open and that must be re-filled every school year. There is no evidence that a position which opens, if any, will be one for which Petitioner is qualified. If there is no position for which Petitioner is suitable available on November 19, 1996 she cannot be placed in Flagler County. Seniority has no effect; suitability by educational qualifications and credentials does. If Petitioner's leave of absence is not approved and she fails to commence work on August 13, 1996, she will forfeit her contract as a teacher. If, after November 19, 1996, Petitioner is neither a School Board member nor a teacher on approved leave of absence, she will no longer be covered by the Florida Retirement System. If Petitioner is denied leave and returns to the position which is now available she will lose no employment benefits. The Superintendent recommended to the Respondent Board that the extension of Petitioner's leave of absence be approved because of the extraordinary circumstance of her gubernatorial appointment to the position of School Board member, and because the requested leave period was for such a short portion of School Year 1996-1997, (approximately 96 days including weekends and autumn holidays when no teaching occurs), that it was acceptable within his expert educator administrative experience. On April 23, 1996, the Respondent School Board voted to refuse the Superintendent's recommendation to extend Petitioner's leave of absence without pay for the additional time she would otherwise be teaching. Petitioner's request was the only recommended leave request not approved at that School Board meeting. An extended leave for over one school year has not been granted by the Flagler County School Board since 1978. The Respondent Board had no evidence before it other than the Superintendent's recommendation when it considered the extension of Petitioner's leave. During the Superintendent's thirteen-year experience which has been since 1983, the Board has always accepted his recommendations with respect to leaves of absence. Due to the death of another School Board member and the inability of Petitioner to participate in the vote, only three Board members participated in the vote on the Superintendent's recommendation for extension of Petitioner's leave of absence. Member Dance moved that the leave be denied because the Board had never before granted an extended leave for an employee to accept a full time salaried position. The motion was approved by two members, Ms. Dance and Mr. Marier. The only "concerns" expressed by Ms. Dance and Mr. Marier, who testified at formal hearing, related to speculation and assumptions that Petitioner presented a case of first impression, certainly for their School Board and probably for the State of Florida, and that if Petitioner were granted an extended leave of absence, it might be difficult to administer the system in the event of a deluge of similar requests from teachers requesting leave without pay to take other salaried positions. Ms. Dance has served on the School Board for twelve years and felt that in a growing school system, such as the Flagler County School District, it is inefficient to remove teachers and then attempt to have positions made available to them upon return from leave. If extended leave is granted, Petitioner will not teach for roughly 96 days of the 1996-1997 School Year and will only teach in Flagler County if re- employed in a position actually available on November 19, 1996. See, Findings of Fact 12-16 supra. Superintendent Kaupke shared Ms. Dance's concern for orderly administration but still recommended approval of extended leave for Petitioner. On average, leaves of absence of varying duration are recommended and granted for a dozen or more teachers each School Year, and there are three to four permanent teacher replacements each year without any significant effect on efficiency of the system or disruption of the education of even elementary school students. In the past, the Superintendent has consistently denied requests of employees to take other salaried positions and the School Board has not granted any. In one instance, a teacher lied to Dr. Kaupe about his reason for requesting a leave of absence without pay and took a salaried teaching position in another state. The Superintendent would not have recommended a leave of absence be granted had he known the true circumstances. During her employment as a teacher, Petitioner also worked part-time in a separate job as a child care apprenticeship instructor. The School Board has no rules, policies or past precedents which forbid dual employment by school teachers, so long as the second job does not interfere with their responsibilities under their teaching contracts with the School Board. For the balance of 1996, all regular School Board meetings are scheduled to be held at 7:30 p.m. on the third Tuesday of each month. Although this schedule is subject to change, at the time of formal hearing herein, there were no scheduled events for School Board members during a school teacher's normal duty hours. Petitioner's requested extended leave of absence was volitional, but was not submitted for the purpose of accepting another salaried position which would physically prevent the performance of her duties as a teacher. Rather, it was submitted in order to conform to the requirements of Section 112.313(10) F.S. and the holding in Wright v. Commission on Ethics, 389 So.2d 662 (Fla. 1980).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Flagler County enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's request for extension of unpaid leave of absence through November 19, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 8th day of August, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, Edgar Lopez, was a fifteen year old student who was assigned to Henry Filer Middle School during the school year of 1987-88 and to Jose Marti Middle School during the school year 1988-89. When a teacher in the Dade County School System wishes to report or refer a discipline problem in the classroom, the teacher completes and submits to the assistant principal a Student Case Management form, commonly referred to as a SCAM. During the 1987-88 school year, at least nine SCAMs were filed concerning Respondent and addressed disruptive behavior problems of tardiness, disobedience, and failure to cooperate. Respondent, Respondent's parent or both were consulted concerning the nine reports; however the behavior did not improve. Then, in school year 1988-89, Respondent continued to have excessive absences, and the visiting teacher consulted Respondent's mother about Respondent's attendance. On January 31, 1989, Respondent was found with two harmful knives at school and during school hours. Possession of knives is a Group 5 offense of the student code of conduct of the Dade County School Board which is punishable by expulsion. Respondent exhibited disruptive behavior and was consulted about his problems but failed to improve. Further, Respondent committed an offense which warrants expulsion. Accordingly, Respondent's assignment to the opportunity school is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to school system's opportunity school program. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 5th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: George dePozsgay, Esquire 2950 S.W. 27th Avenue Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33133 Ramonita Gonzalez Lopez, 10,000 Northwest 80th Court Apartment 2127 Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33016 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2009),1 by being incompetent to teach or to perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school.
Findings Of Fact Ms. LaBranche holds Florida Educator's Certificate 911242, covering the areas of general science, which is valid through June 30, 2011. During the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, Ms. LaBranche was employed by the Lake County School District (District) as a science teacher at Mount Dora Middle School. On January 20, 2009, there was an incident in Ms. LaBranche's classroom involving a student who became ill. The student had requested to go to the front office, and Ms. LaBranche had denied her request. The student fell onto the floor and began crying. Ms. LaBranche did nothing for two or three minutes until some of the other students told her that the student was ill. At that time, Ms. LaBranche called administration for assistance. As a result of Ms. LaBranche's inattention to the student, Ms. LaBranche received an evaluation on February 4, 2009, showing that she needed improvement in the area of personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. On March 4, 2009, Ms. LaBranche received an Observation/Assessment of Professional Standards, showing that she failed to meet satisfactory overall performance expectations and performed unacceptably in the areas of adherence to the Code of Ethics and to the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession of Florida. By memorandum dated April 23, 2009, from Kelly Sanders, the principal at Mount Dora Middle School, Ms. LaBranche was advised that because of her performance deficiencies listed in the Observation/Assessment of Professional Standards she was being placed on performance probation for 90 calendar days, beginning on August 24, 2009, and ending on November 23, 2009. On September 9, 2009, Mr. Sanders met with Ms. LaBranche to discuss her performance deficiencies from the 2008-2009 school year and performance deficiencies in the 2009- 2010 school year. Performance deficiencies during the 2008-2009 school year included her 90-day performance probation, her failure to report grades correctly, and her misplacement of checks written by parents. Ms. LaBranche had performance deficiencies for the first two weeks of the 2009-2010 school year. On August 26, 2009, Ms. LaBranche was yelling so loudly at her class that Mr. Sanders could hear her down at the end of the hall. Ms. LaBranche failed to report to a mandatory training session on time. Additionally, Ms. LaBranche had three major incidents with students within six school days. The incidents included a major fight between two of her students in the media center; one student hitting another on the back in her classroom; and two students yelling at each other in the classroom to the extent that Ms. LaBranche called administration for assistance. Ms. LaBranche was advised of recommended procedures for correction of the performance deficiencies. On September 9, 2009, as a result of her performance deficiencies, Ms. LaBranche was given a Professional/Personal Action Report Relating to Work Experience Appraisal II (Appraisal II), which included the following areas of concern: classroom management and personal characteristics and professional responsibilities. On October 2, 2009, Maria Ramirez, an assistant principal at Mount Dora Middle School, met with Ms. LaBranche to discuss Ms. LaBranche's conduct toward Mr. Sanders on September 30, 2009, when Ms. LaBranche was argumentative with Mr. Sanders in the presence of students, other teachers, and non-instructional personnel. Ms. LaBranche made such statements as: "You never listen to my side," "You are picking on me," "You are out to get me," and "I'm tired of the way you treat me." Such behavior showed a lack of professionalism toward the teaching profession. As a result of her behavior toward Mr. Sanders on September 9, 2009, Ms. LaBranche received an Appraisal II which showed a continuing concern in the areas of professional characteristics and professional responsibilities. As stated in the teacher handbook, Mount Dora Middle School's policies on collecting funds requires teachers to submit monies collected from students on a daily basis. Money was not to be left in the classroom. On October 21, 2009, Ms. Ramirez also met with Ms. LaBranche to discuss her failure to meet these directives. On October 15, 2009, Ms. LaBranche submitted checks she had received from students. The dates on the checks ranged from September 28, 2009, to October 2, 2009. Ms. Ramirez reminded Ms. LaBranche that she had been counseled on this issue the previous school year. As a result of Ms. LaBranche's failure to submit collected funds appropriately, she received an Appraisal II on October 30, 2009, again showing areas of concern in professional characteristics and professional responsibilities. Ms. LaBranche submitted a request for leave of absence dated November 4, 2009, requesting leave from November 16, 2009, to August 1, 2010, for an extended illness. By letter dated November 12, 2009, Ms. LaBranche submitted her resignation to the superintendent of Lake County Schools, effective November 20, 2009. She further advised that she would be on sick leave through November 19, 2009. By letter dated November 13, 2009, Ms. LaBranche advised the School District that she was rescinding her letter of resignation dated November 12, 2009. Ms. LaBranche's request for leave was approved from November 18, 2009, through March 2, 2010. Ms. LaBranche submitted another request for leave of absence dated February 18, 2010, requesting leave from March 1, 2010, through August 1, 2010, for an extended illness. The request for leave was denied on February 25, 2010. Ms. LaBranche submitted a third request for leave dated March 1, 2010, requesting leave from March 2, 2010, through August 1, 2010, for an extended illness. The request for leave was denied on March 4, 2010. Ms. LaBranche submitted another request for leave of absence dated March 3, 2010, requesting leave from March 4, 2010, through August 4, 2010, due to her illness. She noted on the request form that she had a doctor's appointment on the following day. The request for leave was denied on March 4, 2010. Ms. LaBranche submitted an undated request for leave of absence for March 5, 2010, due to illness. This request was denied on March 4, 2010. Ms. LaBranche submitted another undated request for leave of absence from March 5, 2010, through March 8, 2010, for an illness. This request was also denied on March 4, 2010. By letter dated March 11, 2010, the School District advised Ms. LaBranche that she had not requested any accommodation that would allow her to perform her duties. Therefore, the School District directed Ms. LaBranche to be examined by the Lake County School Board's physician for the purpose of evaluating her fitness for duty. She was required to contact Dr. Magy Shanawany before the close of business on March 17, 2010. Ms. LaBranche did not make an appointment with Dr. Shanawany. The School District sent Ms. LaBranche a letter dated March 23, 2010, which stated: Your March, 2010 requests for extended illness leave beginning March 1, 2010 and extending through August 1, 2010[,] is [sic] denied based on the following: You were on Family and Medical Leave Act beginning November 17, 2010[,] and extending through March 2, 2010. You currently have no sick leave available for you to use. You have refused to get a fitness for duty evaluation by the School Board's physician, Dr. Shanawany, as you were required to do in a letter dated March 11, 2010[,] from district staff. Ms. LaBranche, since you have no available sick leave to use, you must report to work or be considered Absent Without Approved Leave. Being Absent without approved Leave is in violation of School Board policy 6.511 and could lead to your termination from employment with Lake County Schools. Please report to work no later than Monday, March 29, 2010. By letter dated March 24, 2010, Ms. LaBranche advised the Lake County School Board that she was currently on medical leave and intended to return to Mount Dora Middle School in August 2010. Ms. LaBranche did return to Mount Dora Middle School on March 29, 2010. At the time that Ms. LaBranche began her medical leave in November 2009, she had not completed her 90-day performance probation, which was to have ended on November 23, 2009; therefore, Mr. Sanders went to Ms. LaBranche's classroom on March 29, 2010, to observe and evaluate her performance in the classroom. Ms. LaBranche informed Mr. Sanders that her physician had told her that she did not have to teach and walked out of the classroom. Mr. Sanders returned to Ms. LaBranche's classroom the next period. Ms. LaBranche refused to teach and walked out of the classroom. Mr. Sanders did an Appraisal II, finding that Ms. LaBranche's performance was unacceptable. By memorandum dated March 29, 2010, Mr. Sanders informed the superintendent of Lake County Schools that Ms. LaBranche's 90-day performance probation had ended and that Ms. LaBranche had failed to correct her performance deficiencies. In his opinion, Ms. LaBranche could not correct her performance deficiencies and recommended the termination of her employment. By letter dated March 29, 2010, the Superintendant of the Lake County Schools advised Ms. LaBranche that she was suspended for four days without pay and a recommendation would be made to the Lake County School Board that Ms. LaBranche's employment be terminated. Ms. LaBranche's employment was terminated effective May 10, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Ms. LaBranche violated section 1012(1)(c), and revoking her educator's certificate for five years, with reinstatement pursuant to the provisions of section 1012.795(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND 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 30th day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be reassigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North.
Findings Of Fact During the whole of the 1987-1988 and the beginning of the 1988-1989 school years, Respondent was a student at Carroll City Senior High School. As of fall, 1988, he was ranked as a 9th grader. Ms. Schipelberg was Respondent's mathematics teacher during the 1987- 1988 school year. In her class, he was outspoken, never brought required supplies to class, and did not work productively when Ms. Schipelberg provided supplies to him. Although Ms. Schipelberg spoke with his father, who promised better behavior on his son's part, better behavior was not forthcoming from Respondent, and on February 18, 1988, Ms. Schipelberg referred Respondent to the office for the same repeated behavior. On March 10, 1988, Respondent was referred by another teacher to Mr. William E. Henderson, a Carroll City High Assistant Principal, for cutting class and leaving school without permission. Three days indoor suspension was meted out as discipline. On May 17, 1988, Respondent was again referred for the administration of discipline by Mr. Henderson. This referral was the culmination of an incident in which Respondent entered a classroom without permission while a class was in progress; "visited" with a student who was properly assigned to that class; refused to leave when requested to do so by the teacher; prevented the teacher from closing the door to shut him out; and directed profanity at the teacher. A security monitor had to be called to eject Respondent from the room, and Mr. Henderson counselled with Respondent's parents and imposed three days outdoor suspension on Respondent. During the whole of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent initiated repeated incidents of disruptive behavior. He frequently moved around the school without a hall pass, contrary to school rules and the Code of Student Conduct. He repeatedly had excessive absences, cut classes, and left the school grounds without permission. During that period he was referred to the guidance counsellor, the visiting teacher, the occupational specialist, and the dropout program. He was placed on a "behavioral contract" requiring weekly progress reports through him to his parents but he failed to comply. By the end of the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent's exit grades were seven failing classes (F's) and one "D," and he had accumulated 89 absences out of 180 days of school. On September 8, 1988, approximately one month into the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent was referred to Mr. Arthur Lindsey, also an Assistant Principal of Carroll City High School. This referral was for counselling due to Respondent's verbal abuse of a substitute teacher. Mr. Lindsey advised Respondent that his behavior was in direct defiance of the Student Code, which it was. Later that same day, Mr. Lindsey was summoned by walkie talkie due to Respondent's presence in the hall without a hall pass, refusal to go back to class, defiance of a school security officer, and loud use of sexually explicit obscenities. Respondent's father was notified, and Respondent was suspended for 10 days. After review by a child study team on September 12, 1988, Mr. Lindsey formally recommended that Respondent be transferred to the alternative education program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North, an "opportunity school" established by the Dade County School Board. The child study team concluded that this was the appropriate placement for Respondent since all of Respondent's infractions and suspensions fell in the Group 5 range of the Student Code. Group 5 offenses rate suspension, expulsion, or transfer to alternative education. The transfer was deemed the least harsh alternative. At formal hearing, Mr. Henderson stated that he concurred in Mr. Lindsey's recommendation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assigning Respondent Robert Ward to the opportunity school program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School--North until such time as his performance reveals that he can be returned to the regular school program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 6th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Fernandez, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Twin Oaks Building--Suite 100 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Mr. and Mrs. Derek Nesbitt 3130 Northwest 174th Street Miami, Florida 33056 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
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 : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Hernando County School Board (Board), the Petitioner, has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment, related to alleged excessive absences, during the 2007-2008 school year.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Board is charged with operating and administering the Hernando County School District. Through its principals and human resources personnel the Board is charged with operating and regulating all personnel matters, including the monitoring of attendance for all employees at each school operated by the Board. Mr. Charles Johnson was the Principal at Westside Elementary School (WES) for the 2007-2008 school year at issue in this case. He had been the principal at that school since 1988 and it was his duty, among other personnel matters, to monitor the attendance of his employees at the school. The Respondent was employed at WES during the 2007-2008 school year. She had been hired to work there for the first time that year. She had, however, been employed by the Board as a teacher since 1997. Prior to the school year in question, the Respondent had a very favorable record as a teacher for the Board. Soon after the Respondent came to work at WES for the 2007-2008 school year she began to exhibit a pattern of frequent absences. The principal, Mr. Johnson, became concerned with Respondent's absences in late September of 2007 because a parent-teacher conference was imminent and report cards or progress reports were due for the first nine-week grading period around that time. The principal maintained a record of the teachers' attendance, including the Respondent. He created a log documenting the Respondent's absences from August 2007 through January 2008. The Respondent was absent five days in August and present for ten days. She was present for ten days and absent for nine days in September. The Respondent was absent on both October 1 and 2, 2007, as well. The Respondent called the principal's secretary on October 2nd to advise that she had a doctor's appointment on the third and would return to work on the fourth. The Respondent did not return to work on October 4th, however. The principal thereupon sent the Respondent a letter advising her that her absences were excessive and she needed to report to work by October 10th. He gave her some lead time in getting back to work because he was unaware of the reasons why she was missing so much work. He also wanted to allow for any delays due to mailing time for his letter, which was mailed on October 4th. The Respondent called the principal and spoke with him on October 8th and advised him that she had been sick and had been "beaten-up." She assured him that she would return to work the next day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work the next day and also failed to come to work on October 10, 2007, as directed in the principal's letter. She did call the school office and leave a voice mail on the principal's phone that morning assuring him that she would be at work the next day, which was October 11th. The Respondent did not return to work on October 11th as promised. Because of her failure to return to work, the principal sent a letter to her dated October 15, 2007, advising her that he had scheduled a "pre-disciplinary hearing" for October 19, 2007, which she should attend. The purpose of that hearing was to give her an opportunity to explain her "excessive absenteeism." The Respondent thereupon was absent from work every day during the week of October 15th, and then failed to attend the scheduled hearing or meeting on October 19th. Moreover, she did not call or otherwise communicate with the principal that week to explain her absences or why she had missed the meeting. Thereafter, the Principal sent the Respondent a letter dated October 23, 2007, again scheduling a pre-disciplinary hearing. The hearing was scheduled for October 30th. The letter was both mailed and personally delivered to the Respondent. Upon receipt of the hand-delivered copy of the letter, the Respondent phoned the principal and spoke to him. According to Mr. Johnson, the Principal, the Respondent told him in this conversation that she had not opened his previous letters, but she assured him she would be at work the following day. The Respondent, however, did not return to work on the following day, which was October 25, 2007, nor did she attend the pre-disciplinary hearing on October 30th, which Mr. Johnson had scheduled. Mr. Johnson, therefore, sent a letter to the Respondent on October 31st advising her that he was recommending to the Superintendent that she be suspended with pay. He sent a letter to the School District office of Labor Relations and Professional Standards on the same day referring the matter to that office, along with copies of all the relevant documents he had which evidenced what be believed were excessive absences. Because of her 10 days or more of consecutive absences, under Board policy, the Respondent was administratively placed on unpaid leave of absence, instead of being suspended with pay as recommended by her principal. The unpaid leave of absence had an effective date of October 15, 2007. Such a leave of absence is designed to enable a principal to replace a teacher in the situation of the Respondent with a permanent certified teacher, to assure continuity of effective instruction. The Respondent was sent instructions regarding her leave of absence by mail on October 15, 2007, from the Human Resources Department of the District. She was thus informed that she could elect to go on extended personal leave or on family medical leave. No information was received from the Respondent in response to this communication, however. The Respondent maintains that she provided a document concerning family medical leave. That form, however, was merely a medical certification statement and not an actual application or request for family medical leave. Moreover, the evidence shows that the Respondent was not qualified for family medical leave, even had a proper application been submitted, because she had not worked a sufficient number of hours in the preceding school year to establish her entitlement to family medical leave under the relevant rules and policies. An employee conference was held with the Respondent on November 2, 2007. The Respondent, the principal, and Ms. Barbara Kidder, who is the Director of Labor Relations and Professional Standards for the School District, were in attendance at the meeting. The Respondent assured them at the meeting that she would return to work the following Monday, November 5th and thereafter maintain satisfactory attendance. She also agreed to seek assistance through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and agreed to advise the school when she had appointments with that program. It was not unusual for Mr. Johnson to have continued the disciplinary process and communication with the Respondent about her absenteeism throughout the month of October, even though she was on a leave of absence. She had been placed on that leave of absence by the District so that it could hire a replacement teacher. It was not a leave she had voluntarily requested. Moreover, even without considering the days of absence while she was on her administrative leave of absence, the principal had a basis for pursuing disciplinary action for the absences she had previously incurred. November 5, 2007, was approved by the District as the Respondent's "early return date" from that leave of absence, which had started on October 15th. Indeed, the Respondent came to work on Monday, November 5th. She was, however, absent for the rest of that week. She did not contact either the principal or his secretary concerning those absences. She called the automated system for assigning substitute teachers (SEMS), which does not constitute nor grant any excuse for an absence. It is merely a means of scheduling or assigning substitute teachers. School did not meet on November 12th, a Monday. On Tuesday, November 13th the Respondent called and left a voice mail message for the principal advising that she had been to the doctor on the Friday before for strep throat and a respiratory infection. She assured him that she would be back the following day November 14, 2007. The Respondent, however, did not report to work on November 14th, but instead called and spoke with the principal around 10:00 a.m., advising him that she just left the doctor's office. She advised him that she had a note indicating she would be clear to report to work on the following Monday. The Principal reminded her that the next week was Thanksgiving week and no school met that week. The Respondent then agreed to come to work on Monday, November 26th and advised that she would have the doctor's note with her at that time. The Respondent failed to report to work on November 26th, as she had promised and did not contact the Principal or his secretary concerning that absence. She also missed work November 27th through the 30th, and did not call the principal or his secretary to explain those absences. The principal accordingly sent her another letter on November 29th advising her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was again scheduled for December 4th to discuss her absences. She did not attend the pre-disciplinary meeting on December 4th nor did she report to work that entire week. She failed to contact the principal or his secretary and explain her absences from work that week and her absence from the scheduled meeting. On December 5, 2007, the principal sent another letter to the Respondent advising her that he was referring her case or situation to the labor relations office. On that same date he sent a memorandum to the director of the labor relations office enclosing all the relevant documentation he had regarding the absences. That office then sent the Respondent a letter on December 5th which advised her that a pre-disciplinary meeting was scheduled for December 12th. The pre-disciplinary meeting was held on December 12th and the Respondent and Ms. Kidder were in attendance. Ms. Kidder gave the Respondent information on the EAP and advised her that she would be reviewing the Respondent's case with the Human Resources Office and the Petitioner's attorney. On December 14th the Respondent met with Ms. Kidder and the principal. The Respondent on this occasion was given a "letter of direction," advising her that she would be assigned a "mentor" and advising her of procedures for absences. The procedures she was directed to follow for absences included a stipulation that a doctor's note would be required for all future absences. The letter of direction given to the Respondent on December 14th contained the following requirements or procedures for the Respondent to follow with regard to her work and her absences: She was be assigned a "mentor" teacher to assist her with transitioning back to work. She was to report to administration each day before reporting to her classroom. She was to meet weekly with administration to review her attendance and her progress. She was expected to be in attendance each day starting Monday, December 17, 2007, and was to follow the Principal's specific directions regarding the process for obtaining approval for sick leave. She was to contact the principal if she had any questions concerning working hours, timesheets, absences, tardiness, sickness at work, leaving the building or related employee issues. She was being placed on probationary status for one year and any future violations of Petitioner's policies or procedures or any administrative directives would constitute "just cause" for disciplinary action up to and including termination. She was expected to contact EAP and attend counseling sessions as recommended by the staff. She was then to document the completed counseling sessions to her principal. During the December 14, 2007, meeting, the Respondent agreed to return to work as directed. She gave no indication that she would be unable to return to work or perform her duties or that there would be any restrictions on her ability to return to work. The Respondent provided no doctor's notes explaining illnesses or absences during either the December 14th meeting or the November 2nd meeting with the Principal. In fact, the Respondent did not return to work the following Monday, December 17th. She also missed the rest of that week and did not contact administration directly about her absences as she had been directed to do on December 14th and as the "letter of instruction" had directed her to do. The Respondent produced phone records at the hearing and testified that certain calls represented conversations with either the Principal or his secretary. This was in an effort to show that she had properly explained her absences. She did not, however, provide corroborating testimony as to which of the calls on the records were specific to a person as opposed to simply leaving a voice mail for that number or receiving no answer at all. In any event, Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent a letter on December 20th reminding her that it was her responsibility to provide a doctor's note in explanation of her absences and that she was supposed to return to work on December 17, 2007. The letter reminded the Respondent that her attendance was critical. The last week of December 2007 and the first week of January 2008, constituted the District's school Christmas Break. The first day of school following Christmas Break was Monday, January 7, 2008. The Respondent did not return to work that day, even though she later presented notes from Doctors Khalil and Alshaar indicating that she was able to work that day. The Respondent did report for work on January 8th, but then was absent for January 9th and 10th. She reported for work on January 11th, but later produced a note from Dr. Alshaar indicating that she should be excused for that day. Ms. Kidder sent the Respondent another letter on January 25, 2008, advising her that a "pre-determination hearing" had been scheduled for February 1, 2008, to again review her absences since January 7, 2008. The Respondent acknowledges that she received the correspondence from the Petitioner referenced above. She was also aware of the Petitioner's polices and procedures on attendance and leaves of absence. She signed a receipt indicating that she had received the Staff Handbook which outlines specific policies and references the School Board Policy Manual in general. Additionally, the Respondent acknowledged to the Principal that "time and attendance" were reviewed during her "new employee orientation" at the school. Teacher absences have a negative impact on the classroom, the students and the school. The principal had to ask other teachers to cover the Respondent's classroom and to use substitutes. A teacher's credibility and the trust of students is impaired when the teacher is constantly absent or alternately appearing or being absent from the classroom on a frequent basis. Mr. Johnson established that the Respondent had the worst attendance record he had experienced with a teacher in his 20 or so years as a principal. Her absences for the 2007-2008 school year far exceeded that of any other teacher at the school. The Collective Bargaining Agreement covering teachers in Hernando County, including the Respondent, provides that sick leave is allowable without loss of pay as provided for by Florida Law and that personal leave should be approved by work site administrators, except in cases of substantial emergency. The Hernando County Staff Handbook is in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 24. It provides the details of the Board's policies and procedures on absences, leaves of absence, sick leave and leaves made necessary by sudden emergencies, etc. The general information concerning leaves of absence, the policies and procedures concerning family medical leave, notification of absence, absence without leave, sick leave, depicted in that exhibit are incorporated in these Findings of Fact by reference. Those policies and procedures include the requirement that where there is any doubt as to the validity of a sick leave claim, the superintendent may require the filing of a written certification of illness from a licensed physician or other supporting evidence if personal illness is not involved. It then provides the consequences of false claims for sick leave, proceeding to list cancellation of a teacher's contract or for action seeking revocation of a teaching contract. It also includes a provision that an application for sick leave due to extended illness shall have attached to it a statement from a practicing physician certifying that such leave is essential and indicating the probable duration of the illness and the needed leave. There is no question, given the pattern of extensive absences, and given the Respondent's lack of communication with the principal, or even the principal's secretary, concerning the reason for her absences or the legitimacy of any illness, that the Principal could have doubts as to the validity of any sick leave or illness claims. He was thus proceeding within the appropriate policies contained in the Manual and Handbook in requiring physician certification or proof concerning illness or absences, which mostly was not provided by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Hernando County Florida terminating the Respondent from her position as a teacher with that School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 4th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Jennifer M. Gallagher 1223 Sanger Avenue Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Wayne S. Alexander, Ed.D. Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue Whether the respondent should be reassigned to the Opportunity School.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Aron Brumm, Assistant Principal at Cutler Ridge, handles about 95% of the disciplinary cases at Cutler Ridge. He was personally involved in investigating the incidents involving Charlotte and in the efforts to correct Charlotte's behavior. The following is an outline of Charlotte's disciplinary record at Cutler Ridge: DATE REASON FOR REFERRAL 9/17/84 Charlotte was disruptive in class, rude, and constantly tardy. 9/25/84 Charlotte was found in possession of pens stolen from the school store. She admitted that she had taken them. 10/4/84 Charlotte was rude, insulting, and disrespectful in class. Class disrupted. 10/31/84 Charlotte threatened another student. 11/1/84 Charlotte talked back to her teacher in class and was rude. She was putting on make-up during the class. 12/6/84 Charlotte constantly tardy to class and disruptive when she gets to class. 12/6/84 Charlotte was disruptive on the school bus. 12/19/84 Charlotte was disruptive in reading class. 1/18/85 Charlotte was found in possession of "Request for Student" blank forms that are used by school to get a student out of class. Charlotte forged the later signature of Mrs. King to get out of class and was found out near the band room; the forms were found in her purse. 1/22/85 Charlotte completely disrupted indoor suspension, which she was attending due to the prior incident. She was defiant and disrespectful. 1/23/85 Charlotte disrupted indoor suspension once again, despite warning given to her the day before. 1/25/85 A pre-opportunity school conference was held, at which time it is discovered that Charlotte had forged Mrs. Steele's name on Charlotte's progress reports. Every effort was made by school personnel to help Charlotte correct her disruptive behavior. From the time of the first incident, contact was made with Charlotte's guardian. By October 4, 1984, Charlotte had been referred to the school counselor. She was placed in an academic study group which met once a week for four weeks. She had special counseling sessions with some of her teachers. She received reprimands, indoor suspensions, and outdoor suspensions. All efforts were ineffective. Although Charlotte had some good days and would show improvement for a short period of time after certain counseling sessions, she ultimately would revert to her former behavior. Charlotte was not removed from the classes where she was having the most difficulty. However, none of the evidence indicates that a change in teachers would have brought about a change in Charlotte's behavior. Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not confined to one class or one teacher. Three different teachers had to refer Charlotte to the assistant principal for disciplinary action because of her intolerable behavior in the classroom. Further, Charlotte's disruptive behavior was not limited to the classroom. She was disruptive on the school bus, she threatened a fellow student, she stole pens from the school store, she forged her guardian's name on her progress reports, and she used a forged pass to get out of class. She was disruptive in indoor suspension. This is clearly not a case of a personality conflict between a student and teacher which can be resolved by transferring the student out of the teacher's class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered approving the assignment of respondent to the opportunity school program at Youth Opportunity School South. DONE and ENTERED this 21th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, 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 21st day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Board Administrative Building Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Jr., Esq. Assistant School Board Attorney McCrary & Valentine, P.A. 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida Mitchell A. Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Northside Shopping Center 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esq. Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether it was appropriate for Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Curtis Brown, under Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes (2007), due to his failure to correct performance deficiencies after having been placed on Professional Services Contract Probation for 90 days, in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t); his "incompetence," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); his "insubordination," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); and his failure to comply with "School Board Policy, State Law or the Appropriate Contractual Agreement," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(x) and Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools of Pinellas County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a math teacher at Johns Hopkins Middle School and has a Professional Services Contract. Petitioner employs a formalized teacher evaluation process that assesses 25 teaching "expectations." These "expectations" are grouped in three related categories: Highest Student Achievement, Safe Learning Environment, and Effective and Efficient Operations. Each "expectation" receives one of four ratings: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, In Progress, and Not Evident. Assessments are made on specific and detailed indicia during observations, interviews, and review of data regarding student achievement. Depending on the number of indicia observed for each of the "expectations," a teacher receives a proficiency rating of Level 1 through 4, with Level 4 being the highest. Below a Level 1 is considered unsatisfactory. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. There are approximately 8,000 teachers in Pinellas County. Of the 8,000, 23 were rated unsatisfactory for the 2007-08 school year; only three were rated unsatisfactory for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. A state requirement of teacher appraisal includes student performance and learning gains for each student in a teacher's class. The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test ("FCAT") is probably the most notorious student achievement data source in Florida. Unfortunately, the FCAT scores become available in July. Most annual teacher assessments are completed in April of each school year. However, there are other student achievement data sources that can be appropriately used in assessing student performance and learning gains. They include teacher-made pre- and post-tests, district developed assessments, student grades, and curriculum developed assessments. A teacher may offer any of these data sources during his or her evaluation. Because Respondent had received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2006-07 school year, administrators at his school and from the district office provided special attention and direction during the first months of the 2007-08 school year designed to help Respondent improve his teaching performance. The efforts of the administration were not successful. Respondent was placed on a 90-day probation period on January 14, 2008. He was advised of his unsatisfactory performance. At the same time, he received a revised "success plan" and a copy of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Respondent received several formal observations and critiques during the probation period. Petitioner provided the requisite assistance, direction, and on-going assessment. During the 90-day probationary period, Respondent did not respond to specific corrective direction given him by administrators regarding a myriad of basic administrative details, teaching techniques, and methodology. Respondent's annual evaluation took place on April 24, 2008, after the conclusion of the 90-day probation. Even though requested, Respondent failed to provide any documentation of positive classroom results. Even though Respondent failed to present any evidence of positive classroom results, the evaluator (the school assistant principal) had monitored potential classroom progress through various data available to him. He failed to note any positive trend. Respondent received 19 "Not Evident" ratings in 25 "Expectations" and an unsatisfactory rating. Respondent's performance problems were increasing in spite of a concerted effort by the administration to correct the trend. In the 2005-06 school year, he received six "Not Evident" ratings; in 2006-07, 14 "Not Evident" ratings; and in 2007-2008, 19 "Not Evident" ratings. Over the several years contemplated by the testimony of school administrators who had supervisory authority over Respondent, he failed to teach the subject matter assigned, failed to complete lesson plans correctly and timely, failed to use a particular math teaching software program (River Deep) as required, failed to take attendance, and did not use the required grading software. In each instance he was encouraged and, then specifically directed, to comply with established policy regarding these areas of teaching responsibility; and yet, he failed to do so. Respondent's teaching record contains memos regarding the following: Two formal conferences regarding use of excessive force (12/6/02 and 10/29/03); A formal conference regarding growing number of parent concerns over penalizing students on academic work for behavioral problems and giving students F's for assignments that they couldn't complete due to lost work books (11/3/2004); A formal conference summary involving several issues including instructional methodology, leaving students unsupervised in class and leaving campus early (1/24/2005); Three reprimands for disparaging remarks made to or about students (1/19/05, 2/16/05, 4/02/07); A 15-day suspension for falling asleep in class and again leaving students unattended in class (7/12/2005); A formal conference summary for again leaving students unattended in the classroom and unsupervised outside of the classroom door (2/9/2007); and A formal conference summaries for missing a meeting and not turning in lesson plans and IPDP's (12/04/07, 1/29/08, 3/03/08).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Curtis Brown's, Professional Services Contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 23rd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Julie M. Janssen Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
