The Issue Whether or not Respondent properly awarded Image Resources, Inc., the bid for computer graphics equipment as set forth in bid No. 9-428-D.
Findings Of Fact On February 20, 1989, Petitioner's district manager, James W. Mercer, met with USF agents Frank Ribaudo and Renee Clements, for the purpose of discussing the needs of the Learning Resource Center's proposed new graphics work station. On March 6, 1989, Mercer delivered to Ribaudo the Petitioner's hard copy proposal for the graphics work station which was considered by Respondent in preparing its RFP. In May 1989, the University of South Florida (USF) issued a RFP for a computer graphics system for the Learning Resource Center of the Health Sciences Center of the University, proposal No. 9-428-D. On May 26, 1989, Petitioner received a copy of USF's RFP which included, among other things, Appendix A, a verbatim copy of the hard copy proposal as prepared and submitted by Petitioner in early March, 1989. Included with the RFP was also an Appendix B which was prepared by another offerer. Appendix B had the appearance of a "shopping list" for various computer equipment for USF's graphics work station. Petitioner, based on what it construed as an inconsistency between Appendix A and B, called Tom DeBella for clarification and was told that the proposal should be prepared according to the specifications called for in Appendix A which took precedence over Appendix B to the extent there were any inconsistencies between the two appendices. The effect of Petitioner's conversation with DeBella removed all inconsistencies between the appendices. Petitioner delivered its RFP to the purchasing agent at USF on June 9, 1989, in a timely fashion. On June 10, 1989, an addendum no. 1, extending the date to respond to the RFP until June 16, 1989, was prepared by Respondent and delivered to the various offerers. Petitioner notified Respondent on June 16, 1989, that its RFP, as originally submitted on June 9, 1989, should be considered as its final offering. Respondent received proposals from three offerers, Rainbow Graphics Technology, Inc., Image Resources, Inc., and Blumberg Communications, Inc. On June 16, 1989, the bids were tabulated and the documentation of the three offerers were presented to a committee for evaluation. The committee met and on July 5, 1989, drafted a memo which was delivered to the purchasing department stating its recommendation to accept the system offered by Intervenor, Image Resources, Inc. The three offerers submitted responses to the RFP as follows: Image Resources, Inc., submitted a timely response for the sum of $79,860.00; Blumberg Communications, Inc., submitted a timely response for the sum of $94,075.00 and; Rainbow Graphics Technology, Inc., timely submitted its response for the sum of $97,484. In preparing the RFP, Frank Ribaudo attended various seminars where computer graphics equipment was displayed, worked with various vendors and utilized the knowledge gained from the liaison with the vendors, the seminars and his contact person at USF's medical center, Dr. Kaufman. Prior to submitting their proposals, the three vendors responding to the RFP were invited to the University to review the facility and the university's layout to determine exactly what specific graphic system would be needed to best satisfy USF's requirements. Of the three vendors responding to the RFP, Petitioner submitted the highest response. Intervenor, Image Resources, Inc., was the lowest offerer of the three vendors responding to the RFP. All of the responses were evaluated by the Learning Resources Center HFC Committee in accordance with the procedures of Chapter 287.062(1), Florida Statutes. USF, following review by its evaluation committee, accepted the response submitted by Intervenor as the lowest responsive offer. The RFP called for an integrated system capable of industrial quality 3/4" video output. Specifications in the RFP also called for optical storage as being critical to management of TARGA files. The specifications required that hard disk performance of 13 MS and optical storage were critical to the management of TARGA files. Petitioner submitted a proposal providing a hard disk system with a speed of 1 MS which exceeds the specifications called for in the RFP. Petitioner also included a Shinko ChC-345 printer which is not postscript compatible and does not have an internal controller with a microcompressor and 8 MB RAM as specified in Appendix A. Intervenor's proposed printer is postscript compatible with the software package included in its proposal. Specifications in the RFP require a video adapter capable of 32-BIT color or PAL and Intervenor's proposal is capable of handling 32-BIT color. Intervenor is an authorized dealer to handle the Matrix instruments film recorder and has offered to serve and maintain the equipment it proposed for one year, a substantially longer period than the 90 day warranty offered by the manufacturer, Matrix.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, the University of South Florida Purchasing Department, enter a final order upholding the award of the bid proposal for the computer graphics system to Image Resources, Inc., and deny Petitioner's request to resubmit this proposal as an Invitation to Bid under Chapter 287.12(8), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 12th day of December, 1989.
The Issue The issue for determination at hearing was whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board (“School Board” or “Petitioner”).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher at Van E. Blanton Elementary School (“Blanton”) by the School Board and held a professional services contract. She began working for the School District as a substitute teacher in 1994 and has been employed as a full-time teacher for 14 years. On April 20, 2016, Respondent was issued a Professional Responsibilities Memorandum regarding student discipline. The purpose of the memo was to remind Respondent of how to properly treat children who are misbehaving after she was observed sending two students to stand in the corner after blurting out answers. On or about April 25, 2016, Respondent hit a student with her hand on the student’s arm, leaving the student’s arm visibly red and welted. A summary of a conference-for-the-record from May 18, 2016, was admitted into evidence. Pedro Cedeno, the principal at Blanton for the past three years, stated that he considered the current incidents similar in nature to this prior incident from 2016. On May 19, 2016, Respondent was issued a written reprimand relating to the April 25, 2016, incident. On April 18, 2017, the Education Practices Commission (“EPC”) filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent based on the April 25, 2016, incident under EPC Case No. 17-0457-RT. On December 14, 2017, a Final Order was entered in the EPC case, adopting the parties’ Settlement Agreement, which issued Respondent a letter of reprimand and placed her on one year’s probation. Throughout Respondent’s tenure with the School Board prior to the instant matter, the only discipline she received was the reprimand described above. Three incidents, occurring on March 8, 13, and May 23, 2019, respectively, gave rise to these proceedings. Respondent worked at Blanton as a first-grade teacher. On March 8, 2019, Mr. Cedeno was standing near the main office when he saw Respondent and her class coming in from the hallway. Mr. Cedeno saw Respondent pull a student, C.J., who was kneeling on the ground at the back of the line. Respondent said something to the student, but Mr. Cedeno could not hear it. Mr. Cedeno saw Respondent pull the student by the arm. He testified that Respondent was “pulling her to move her whole body over to the back of the class … it was more of a pull, which is what caught my attention.” Mr. Cedeno approached Respondent and asked, “What’s going on?” He also told Respondent that they cannot pull students like that. He advised Respondent it would be better to leave the child there and call for attention or assistance. Apparently, the video cameras were not working on March 8 because no video footage was available for Mr. Cedeno, Respondent, or the undersigned to review after the incident or at hearing. On March 13, 2019, Mr. Cedeno saw via video that Respondent had her students lined up as they were coming or going into the classroom. Mr. Cedeno observed Respondent grab and pull a student into the class. That caught his attention. It was not an appropriate way for Respondent to have handled the situation. Both the March 8 and 13, 2019, incidents involved C.J. The March 13, 2019, video showed that C.J. was moving slowly in the hallway while the rest of Respondent’s students were already in the classroom. Respondent waved at C.J. and said something to the effect of “let’s go.” When C.J. did not respond, Respondent went to C.J., took her by the arm, and walked her into the classroom. While the video does not show excessive force being used to pull C.J. up from the floor where she was tying her shoe, it did show more than Respondent reaching out her hand, then waiting for C.J. to take her hand to be led. There was a small amount of force involved in getting C.J. up and moving. Respondent testified she was not mad at C.J., but she was firm in telling C.J. she needed to get going and into the classroom. From the video, C.J. did not seem embarrassed and was not crying when she was physically urged up and into the classroom. The video does not evidence violence, anger, or aggression. It does evidence a teacher pulling a young student up from the floor and walking her briskly into the classroom. At hearing, however, C.J. testified credibly that she was both embarrassed and sad by the incident. Following the March 13, 2019, incident, Mr. Cedeno filed a personnel investigative form with the School District’s Office of Professional Standards. No action was taken to remove Respondent from her position or to impose any discipline. J.E., a student, testified regarding the May 23, 2019, incident. He said Respondent was his teacher during the prior school year. He watched the video of the incident and identified both himself and Respondent in the video. J.E. had asked Respondent if he could go to the bathroom. Respondent did not allow J.E. to use the bathroom at that time. Then, J.E. tried to get into the classroom to use the bathroom and Respondent pushed J.E. The video shows Respondent push J.E. J.E. fell and then got up. His leg was hurting and it made him feel mad. J.E., a large child for his age, appeared somewhat distracted while testifying, and his mother had to prompt him once or twice to pay attention to the questions being asked and to give audible answers. However, his recollection of the May 23, 2019, incident was clear. He admitted that he was acting up, which was confirmed by Respondent, but was “mad” at being pushed into the classroom where he landed on one of his classmates. He was only mildly injured and did not require first aid or medical care as a result of his fall. Respondent noted that J.E. was a disruptive student who is disobedient, bigger than the rest of the students in the class, and is known for pushing and bullying the other students. Respondent testified that on May 23, 2019, rather than entering the classroom when he was supposed to, J.E. doubled back, grabbed another student, and spun the student around, which caused that student to cry. Respondent was obviously frustrated by J.E.’s behavior and gave him a push into the room. J.E. bumped into his best friend, which sent the two of them sprawling onto the ground. According to Respondent, J.E. fell to the ground laughing and clowning around, after which they all sat down and started class. J.E. did not appear embarrassed or upset by the incident, Respondent testified. The May 23, 2019, incident was captured on video and was personally witnessed by a teacher, Alissa Bennett, who was coming down the hall with her class at the time. Ms. Bennett is a fifth-grade teacher at Blanton and was employed as such during the incidents giving rise to these proceedings. Ms. Bennett knows of Respondent but does not know Respondent personally. Ms. Bennett testified regarding the May 23, 2019, incident and reviewed the video of the incident during her testimony. On May 23, 2019, Ms. Bennett was walking her class to lunch. It was about 11:30 or 11:35 a.m. She came out of the stairwell and saw a big commotion in front of her. There was a lot of yelling and kids in the hallway. When Ms. Bennett walked closer, she saw Respondent push a student into the classroom. Ms. Bennett kept walking and heard one of her students exclaim, “[w]ow, that teacher just pushed that student.” Ms. Bennett said, “I was kinda like, oh, my God. Did that just happen? Did I just see that?” She recognized this as a serious incident. She took her students to lunch. Later that night, she told her boyfriend about the events she witnessed at school. She was a new teacher and was not sure what to do about it. Her boyfriend encouraged her to report the incident. The following day, on May 24, 2019, Ms. Bennett reported the incident via text to the counselor. She also spoke to Mr. Cedeno about what she saw. Mr. Cedeno acknowledged speaking with Ms. Bennett about the incident. He explained that Respondent could have avoided the situation by using a call button, an emergency button that immediately notifies the office, or she could have asked another person in the hallway for assistance. For example, there are always security and staff in the hallway, and they are present in the video evidence submitted. The security and other staff members have radio access. Mr. Cedeno testified that there was no excuse, based upon what he saw in the video, for Respondent to push J.E. The School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the classroom teachers union, have agreed to be bound by the principle of progressive discipline, and that discipline imposed shall be consistent with that principle. Accordingly, they have agreed that the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Respondent for ten days without pay and awarding her back pay from the date her employment was terminated, except for the ten days of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 4th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Office of the School Board Attorney 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Michele Lara Jones, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Room 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether by showing the movies "Death Wish II", "First Blood", and "Police Academy", or portions of those movies, to respondent's fourth grade students, respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B- 1.06(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact STIPULATED FACTS: Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 367043 covering the areas of Elementary Education, English and Reading. At all times material hereto, the respondent was employed as a fourth grade teacher at Woodland Elementary School in the Pasco County School District. During the 1983-84 school year, the respondent permitted his fourth grade class to view the movie "Death Wish II", an "R" rated movie. Subsequently, the respondent's principal instructed the respondent that in the future, no films could be shown to the respondent's students without first obtaining a specific permission of the principal. Following the showing of "Death Wish II", the principal adopted a new policy for the 1984-85 teacher handbook which stated, "No video movies are to be shown in the classroom without special permission from the principal." The new policy requiring special permission from the principal was discussed and explained to all teachers at a faculty meeting on or about August 20, 1984. The respondent was in attendance at the meeting. On June 3, 1985, the respondent permitted his fourth grade class to view approximately forty-three minutes of the movie "First Blood" at which time he stopped the movie due to his concern over the escalating violence depicted in the movie. The respondent also permitted his fourth grade students to view the movie "Police Academy". The respondent did not obtain special permission from his principal to show those movies to his students. The movies contained scenes involving violence, nudity, profanity and implied sexual acts. DEATH WISH II At the end of the 1983-84 school year, the respondent's fourth grade class joined Mr. Younglove's sixth grade class to watch video movies in Mr. Younglove's classroom. The movie "Death Wish II" was shown. The movie was on a video disc that did not have a rating on it. However, Mr. Younglove had a card which contained numbers indicating when the movie would have to be stopped to edit certain parts of the movie by fast forwarding. Mr. Younglove operated the video equipment and fast forwarded the movie at certain times. There was insufficient evidence to determine what specific portions of the movie "Death Wish II" had been edited by fast forwarding. Prior to allowing his students to view the movie "Death Wish II", the respondent had not seen the movie himself and had taken no steps to personally determine the movie's rating. Further, respondent, was not familiar with the theme, plot or story line of the movie other than believing that "it had something to do with the bad guys getting it from the good guys for a change". "Death Wish II" is an extremely violent movie containing graphic rape scenes, numerous scenes of cold-blooded murder committed by the movie's "hero", and vulgar language. Prior to the first rape scene, which occurs within the first ten minutes of the movie, it is apparent that the movie is not suitable for fourth graders. From the build-up to the rape scene, it is fairly obvious what is going to occur. The entire theme of the movie is inappropriate. It suggests that the criminal justice system does not work, that it is acceptable to obstruct the police in their investigation of a crime, and that it is justifiable for a victim of a crime to seek his own revenge by systematically executing the perpetrators of the crime. Mr. Kelley, the Guidance Counselor at Woodland, succinctly summarized the movie by stating, "it is totally inappropriate for showing not only nine and ten-year-olds, but I would say it's inappropriate for most human beings." Subsequent to the showing of "Death Wish II", Mr. Stevens, a parent of one of respondent's students, called Mr. Renninger, the principal, about the showing of the movie. Mr. Renninger called respondent into his office and discussed the matter with him. Mr. Renninger told respondent that an "R" rated movie was not acceptable to show elementary students, and that in the future, respondent could not show any video movies to the students without first obtaining the principal's permission. Respondent talked to Mr. Stevens and was very apologetic about the showing of the movie. TEACHER'S HANDBOOK-PAGE 42B Prior to the opening of the 1984-1985 school year, the teachers at Woodland Elementary School, including respondent, attended a faculty meeting at which time revisions to the teacher handbook were discussed. Page 42B, entitled "Responsibilities of Teachers - Lesson Plan", was specifically discussed. Page 42B contains the following language: All films, filmstrips and VCRs tapes MUST be listed in your lesson plans. No video movies are to be shown in the classroom at any time without special permission from the principal. The requirement that teachers obtain special permission from the principal prior to showing any video movie was added to the handbook as a result of the showing of "Death Wish II". "POLICE ACADEMY" AND "FIRST BLOOD" On June 3, 1985, at the end of the 1984-85 school year, respondent's fourth grade class once again joined Mr. Younglove's sixth grade class to view video movies. It was the end of the school year, and the movies were not intended to have any educational value but were simply to entertain the students. The teachers were not required to submit lesson plans for that period of time. On the Friday immediately preceding Monday, June 3, 1985, Mr. Younglove told respondent that he had obtained authorization from the assistant principal to show "P" and PG" rated films to his classroom. Mr. Younglove had received permission slips signed by the student's parents indicating that "P" and "PG" film would be shown. The respondent also sent permission slips to the parents of his students. Respondent was advised that the movies would be brought in by the students. When respondent's students arrived at Mr. Younglove's classroom, the movie "First Blood" was in progress. Mr. Younglove informed respondent that the movie had been edited for television and was "all right". However, at some point thereafter, Mr. Younglove left the classroom leaving respondent to monitor the combined classes. As the movie continued, respondent became concerned by the escalating violence in the movie and therefore ordered the film stopped. The video tape was then rewound to the beginning of the tape to the movie "Police Academy". Prior to permitting his students to view "First Blood", the respondent had not seen the movie himself and was not familiar with its plot, theme or story line. Neither respondent nor Mr. Younglove had received special permission from the principal or assistant principal to show the movie "First Blood". The portion of "First Blood" shown to respondent's class contained profanity and physical violence and, as admitted by respondent, was not appropriate for viewing by fourth grade students. Mr. Younglove was still absent from the room when the movie "Police Academy" began. The respondent did not know the movie's rating but questioned Mr. Younglove about the rating when Mr. Younglove returned to the classroom. Mr. Younglove informed respondent that it was rated "PG". Prior to permitting his students to view the movie, respondent was not familiar with the movie's theme, plot or story line, although he assumed that it was a comedy because he had seen "Police Academy II" advertised on T.V. The movie "Police Academy" contains numerous profanities and vulgarities which are regularly spaced throughout the movie. The movie contains female nudity and two implied sex scenes. Although the movie was stopped and fast forwarded, apparently on two occasions when nudity had been observed, the students viewed all of "Police Academy" except for approximately two minutes and 30 seconds when it was fast forwarded and the screen was blank. As admitted by respondent, the movie "Police Academy" is not appropriate for viewing by 10-year old children. Indeed, the movie is so filled with inappropriate language and activity that it would be impossible to edit out all the objectionable material and have much of the movie left. During the showing of "First Blood" and "Police Academy", there was considerable activity going on in the classroom. Students were going in and out of the classroom to get drinks of water. Several students were practicing karate, having just recently seen the movie "Karate Kid". Others were listening to music on cassette tape recorders. Some students were playing "finger break", and some students were crawling around under the tables. The noise level in the classroom was fairly loud, and many students were paying little attention to the movie. On the Wednesday following the showing of the film, respondent called the mother of one of his students who had been upset about the movies being shown to her daughter. During the conversation, the parent advised respondent that the movies were "R" rated. This was the first time that respondent learned of the rating of the films. RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT By allowing fourth grade students to view the movies, "Death Wish II", "Police Academy", and "First Blood", the respondent showed a complete lack of judgment. After the first several minutes of both "Police Academy" and "Death Wish II", it becomes quite apparent that the movies are not suitable for 9 and 10-year olds. Respondent's belief that the movies were rated "PG" does not in any way justify the respondent's behavior in permitting his class to continue to view movies that are totally inappropriate for that age group. After the incident involving "Death Wish II", respondent had been specifically told that he had to obtain permission from the principal prior to showing any video movies. He was also aware of the written policy which requires this. Nevertheless, he allowed his fourth grade class to view "Police Academy" based on Mr. Younglove's representation that the movie was rated "PG" and that the assistant Principal had given permission for "PG" rated movies to be shown, neither of which representation, as it turned out, was accurate. RESPONDENT'S EFFECTIVENESS AS A TEACHER Respondent began teaching in the Pasco County School System in the 1974-75 school year. Since that time, he has received evaluations indicating that he has been a "satisfactory" or "effective" teacher every year except for his first evaluation as a first year teacher, which indicated that he needed improvement in every area listed, and an evaluation for the period of August, 1978, to February, 1979, which indicated that his performance was unsatisfactory in three of the five categories listed. Since the 1979 evaluation, the respondent has been evaluated as satisfactory in every school year. At the hearing, the parents of several of respondent's students testified that respondent had been a good teacher for their child and that they would not hesitate to have respondent teach another one of their children even though they were aware of the content of the movies that were shown in the classroom. Letters from the parents of 19 other students who had respondent as a teacher supported the opinion of the five parents who had testified on behalf of respondent that respondent was a good teacher. Respondent has maintained a good rapport with both his students and their parents, and he has been very effective in improving some of his students' academic skills. Dr. John Long, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, believes that respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously affected by his conduct, but not so seriously reduced that respondent could not have taught again in Pasco County on a probationary status at a school other than Woodland. Dr. John S. Joyce, the Director of Personnel, believes that respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been drastically reduced as a Pasco County teacher in that respondent's action in showing inappropriate movies for a second year in a row indicates that respondent is either insubordinate or defective in judgment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings off Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is concluded that respondent has violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. However, in considering the appropriate penalty, respondent's improper conduct should be balanced with his satisfactory performance as a teacher over the last six years and the positive effect he has had on many of his students. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that respondent has violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and suspending respondent's certificate for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, 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 8th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1802 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-2. Accepted in paragraph 1. 3.-4. Rejected as unnecessary though accepted as true. Indicated in Background as to who the individuals are. Accepted in paragraph 1. Accepted as inferred in paragraph 7. Accepted in paragraph 5. 8.-9. Accepted generally paragraph 6. Rejected as immaterial in that studies do not relate to the effect of a single incident. Accepted generally in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted generally as set forth in paragraph 4. Rejected as based solely on hearsay evidence. Accepted generally in paragraph 7. 16.-17. Accepted in paragraph 8. Accepted in paragraphs 9, 11 and 13. Accepted in paragraphs 3 and 11. Accepted in paragraph 17. Accepted in paragraph 11. Accepted generally in paragraphs 3 and 11. 23.-25. Accepted generally in paragraph 12. 26.-28. Accepted in paragraph 13. 29-38. To the degree these are not a synopsis of the testimony, they are accepted generally in paragraph 14. Rejected as immaterial. Accepted generally in paragraphs 17 and 20. Rejected as specific finding as cumulative. Rejected as specific finding as unnecessary since no contrary finding was made. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-3. Accepted generally in paragraph 4, portions not included rejected as immaterial or not supported by competent evidence. 4. Accepted to the degree stated in paragraph 4, that there was no competent evidence to determine which portions had been edited. 5-6. Accepted generally in paragraph 7 and by omission of a contrary finding. Accepted generally in paragraph 8; next to last sentence rejected as not supported by competent evidence and as immaterial. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 9. 9.-10. Accepted generally in paragraph 10. 11.-12. Accepted in paragraphs 11 and 15. 13.-15. Accepted generally in paragraphs 11, 13, and 14. 16.-18. Rejected as specific findings as immaterial and merely as recitation of testimony, although generally accepted in paragraphs 14 and 15. 19. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 16. 20.-23. Rejected as immaterial. 24-25. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 20. 26. Accepted generally in paragraph 18. 27.-28. Accepted generally in paragraph 19, although the numbers not accepted since there was no indication on several letters that the individuals were parents or, if parents, when their child was in respondent's class. 29.-40. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraphs 19 and 7. Parental comments were considered in mitigation of penalty as stated in conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder P.O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas W. Young, III 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Education Practices Commission Executive Director Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher serving pursuant to a continuing contract. At the time of the final hearing in this cause, she was 49 years old and had worked continuously as a teacher for the School Board of Dade County, Florida, from 1962 until her suspension on August 23, 1989, except for five maternity leaves. Respondent attended college in Greenville, North Carolina, on a "State Department" scholarship between 1958 and 1962. In 1962, she received a B.A. degree in French and English and passed the National Teachers' Examination. In 1962, she accepted a teaching position with the Dade County Public Schools, teaching a two-course basic education program in her earliest years. Thereafter and until the 1986-87 school year, she taught English. During the 1962-63 academic year Respondent experienced many changes in her life: she began her first teaching job, she married, and she experienced her first pregnancy. These events, taken as a whole, made the 1962-63 academic year an extremely difficult one for the Respondent. Respondent's teaching performance was evaluated during the 1962-63 academic year using the Petitioners evaluation instrument then in use. Under that evaluation instrument, the teacher's performance was evaluated and assigned an averaged score. An averaged rating of 3.5 indicated satisfactory performance. During that academic year, Respondent's annual evaluation averaged score was 3.3. For every year thereafter continuing through the 1985-86 academic year Respondent's annual evaluation rated her performance as a classroom teacher as being acceptable. Throughout that time, Petitioner used three different evaluation systems for rating classroom teachers, including the TADS evaluation system currently in effect. In 1984, the School Board encouraged its teachers to become computer literate. Because Respondent needed additional coursework to renew her State teaching certificate, she enrolled in a computer class and then in a word processing class. She was "intrigued" by computers. She continued taking computer courses at Barry University, eventually entering the master's program at Barry University, majoring in computer education. By June of 1988 she had completed 39 credits with an overall grade point average of 3.846. In 1986, Respondent decided to look for a position teaching computer classes. She learned of a vacancy for a computer teacher at Brownsville Middle School, a Chapter I school in Dade County. She sought a transfer from her then current school where she taught English to Brownsville. She was interviewed by both the outgoing principal and the incoming principal Patricia Grimsley. Grimsley hired her to teach computer courses and to develop and equip the computer lab. Grimsley admitted that the computer lab had "deficiencies" which she expected Respondent to overcome. Respondent began teaching computer courses at Brownsville Middle School during the 1986-87 school year. During the three academic years Respondent taught at Brownsville Middle School, her general ability to perform her duties was seriously impaired by the "deficiencies" in the computer lab and the lack of assistance from her supervisors regarding her problems with adapting the administration of computer classes to traditional requirements. When she began teaching at Brownsville during the 1986-87 school year the computer lab itself was not ready to be occupied. Instead, Respondent was required to use a converted teachers' work room as a classroom. This room contained an inner office which was used by the school security personnel. The passage through her classroom of school security personnel and other law enforcement officers frequently accompanied by disruptive students caused a serious and continuing class distraction. The computers installed at the school were Tandy machines, Style TRS 80, Model 3, commonly known to people who were computer literate as "trash 80 machines." These computers had a non-functioning network which prohibited saving in or retrieving data from the computer memory. Accordingly, a student working on a project would begin each day's class by programming into the computer everything that student had already programmed into the computer on the previous day before the student could move forward. There was not a functioning printer in the classroom so that no hard copies off anything could be printed. The few textbooks available were textbooks commonly used in college, not in a Chapter I junior high school. These were the conditions under which Respondent taught during the 1986-87 school year. By the 1987-88 school year Respondent and her students had moved into the new computer lab. State-of-the-art computers had arrived for use in the computer lab, but there was still no software or books. During the summer of 1988, the software-and books arrived. Respondent had requested permission to be able to use the software to teach it to herself during the summer when She was only teaching half days, but the administrative personnel stored the software instead. During the 1988-89 school year, Respondent and her students began learning the software and the books together. In the interim period, before all of the materials and equipment necessary to daily teaching were supplied, Respondent borrowed software from her friends, and began creating daily projects, lessons, and activity sheets to keep her students busy and learning. These efforts to generate daily classroom activity created a "lot of work" for this teacher. She did not have a bank of lessons and activities from which to draw as would any experienced teacher or even a beginning teacher teaching in an area where others had lessons and activities previously given to draw upon. She was also considered a "vital resource" at Brownsville during those three years, assisting other teachers and other school employees in setting up their computers and learning the programs they needed to use. She even set up the computer in Principal Grimsley's office and assisted Grimsley in learning the program. School year 1986-87, Respondent's first year as a computer teacher and first year at Brownsville, was also Principal Grimsley's first year as a principal and first year at Brownsville. It was also Assistant Principal Senita's first year as an assistant principal. During each of Respondent's three years at Brownsville, she experienced difficulty with Principal Grimsley whom she found to be "unreceptive" and "unsupportive." Grimsley's "mind would wander" during Respondent's discussions with her of the problems that Respondent was having. On October 10, 1986, near the beginning of Respondent's first year at Brownsville, she was formally observed in the classroom by Principal Grimsley and was rated acceptable in all categories. On November 26, 1986, Grimsley held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent. A conference-for-the-record is a formal meeting with the employee to put the employee on notice of problems. The subject matter of this conference-for-the-record was Respondent's failure to continuously submit lesson plans on a weekly basis as required by Grimsley's administrative directives. Respondent had been submitting her lesson plans on some occasions but not on a weekly basis. She was directed to submit her lesson plans on a weekly basis and was put on notice that if she did not do so, further disciplinary action would occur. Respondent wished to discuss at the conference-for- the-record the lack of materials and equipment for the computer lab and the unusual demands on her time occasioned by those deficiencies. However, Respondent had been given prior notice of the purpose of the conference, and the labor contract between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board does not permit the person holding the conference to go outside the stated subject matter of the notice. Grimsley did not initiate any subsequent discussions with Respondent regarding Respondent's problems during the three years that Respondent taught at Brownsville. On March 9, 1987, Grimsley held another conference for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's failure to submit weekly lesson plans each week and the fact that Respondent had not called the school until 8:55 a.m. to say she would be late when she was due to begin work at 8:45 a.m. Respondent was again directed to submit her lesson plans every week, and was directed to call the school in a more timely manner to indicate her tardiness or absences. Grimsley further explained that if the problems were not remediated, Respondent would be rated unsatisfactory in Category VII, Professional Responsibilities, and would be put on prescription. A prescription is a formal plan given to the teacher to address deficiencies in the teacher's performance. It is a plan formulated to assist a teacher for whom a deficiency has been documented. However, once a prescription is established, it is obligatory upon the teacher to fulfill it. At the March 9 conference-for-the-record, Respondent explained to Grimsley that she could not keep up with all the demands on her time and requested a transfer to a different teaching assignment. Grimsley explained that she had no other computer teachers at Brownsville and no current vacancy in a different teaching area. Therefore, Respondent could not be transferred to a different teaching assignment. On April 22, 1987, Grimsley held another conference- for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's unsatisfactory performance in Category VII, Professional Responsibilities. Respondent had been absent on the day that grades were required to be turned in and for several days before that. She had made no provision for bringing her grades to school to turn them in on the days that she was out sick. Respondent was placed on prescription. She was directed to submit her grades within the school's guidelines, and Grimsley had her write a report on proper grading procedures. Respondent completed the prescription and indicated that she understood the directives as to submitting grade sheets. Respondent remediated her deficiencies and received an acceptable yearly evaluation for the 1986-87 school year in all categories. The 1987-88 school year commenced with the Respondent and her students located in the new computer lab using the new state-of-the-art computers and printers. Respondent, however, still did not have software and books for her students to use. On February 8, 1988, Grimsley held a conference-for- the-record with Respondent. The issues discussed were Respondent's leaving work early and not signing out, not completing grade sheets, and not submitting grade sheets by the end of the teacher workday on January 29, 1988. A teacher workday is a professional day when there are no students in school and the teachers generally complete grade sheets for the end of the grading period Respondent had been given the teachers' workday agenda prior to the workday, outlining the schedule of deadlines and the meetings that Grimsley had also scheduled for teachers to attend that day. In fact, Respondent had not left work early that day but had been late returning from lunch because she and other teachers from Brownsville had gone during the lunch period to another school to attend a celebration at that school. Further, teachers are not required to sign out for lunch on a teacher workday. Nevertheless, Respondent had failed to submit her grades at the end of that teacher workday. Under the procedures established in that school, Respondent's failure to submit her grades by the end of the day delayed the report cards for the entire school. Respondent was again placed on prescription for Category VII, Professional Responsibilities. She was directed to submit her grade sheets on time for the next two grading periods. She was also docked a half-day's pay for returning from lunch late on January 29., She was told that if her grades were turned in on time and completed, the prescription would be satisfied On March 7, 1988, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Assistant Principal Gail Senita. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had no lesson plans. For her prescription, she was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to include in them objectives, activities, a method of evaluation, add a provision for homework, as required by the labor contract. She was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because there were no graded papers in student folders, and there were no grades in Respondent's gradebook. As a prescription, she was directed to maintain student folders with examples of graded student papers. School Board policy requires teachers to keep folders with samples of student works Respondent explained to Senita that she kept an electronic gradebook on the computer. However, she did not show that electronic gradebook to Senita. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Senita on June 1, 1988. She was rated in assessment techniques because there were still no student folders with graded work and no gradebook with student grades. While Respondent did have computer spreadsheets with students' names, they contained no grades for the students. As a prescription, Respondent was directed to prepare folders for the students and to file samples of the students' classwork, quizzes, homework, and tests in those folders. She was directed that the folders should contain at least one paper per week and should show a progression of difficulty. Respondent explained to Senita that the students' work was on computer disks. Senita suggested that Respondent print out hard copies of the students' work to file in the students' folders On June 14, 1988, Grimsley gave Respondent her 1987- 88 annual evaluation. That evaluation rated Respondent as acceptable in all categories, meaning that Respondent had remediated all deficiencies during that school year. Respondent signed that annual evaluation as having been received by her on June 14, 1988. Three days later, Grimsley came to Respondent's classroom and told her to sign another annual evaluation form. Respondent did so. That second annual evaluation form indicated that Respondent was acceptable in all categories except for Category VI, Assessment Techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in that category and was given an overall rating of unacceptable. However, she was recommended for employment That second evaluation contained an end-of-the-year prescription directing Respondent to record at least one formal grade for each student in the gradebook each week, and, if she used a grade sheet, to show a hard copy to the assistant principal on a weekly basis, and to place graded samples of student work, including homework and tests, in the student folders. Grimsley did not tell anyone that she had determined that Respondent had remediated her deficiencies and achieved an acceptable 1987-88 annual evaluation in all categories. Rather, she turned in the second evaluation form to be made part of Respondent's personnel file. At hearing, Grimsley verified that the signature on the evaluation finding Respondent acceptable in all categories was her signature, but failed to tell the truth about the incident, saying only "that's strange." The second evaluation form cannot be declared to be the "official" evaluation form. Grimsley did not offer any explanation for why, or if, she had changed her mind. It, therefore, cannot be found that Respondent received an unacceptable evaluation for the 1987-88 school year. Respondent taught during the summer of 1988, keeping a computerized rollbook which she turned in to the administrators. No criticisms were given to her of her computerized gradebook. During that summer, the software and books for the students arrived although Respondent did not have access to them until the beginning of the 1988-89 school year. That school year began, and Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Senita on September 22, 1988. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she had no lesson plan. Without a lesson plan, an administrator cannot monitor compliance with the School Board's curriculum. As a prescription, she was directed to prepare lesson plans and submit them weekly to the department chairperson. She was directed that these plans were to include objectives, activities, a way of monitoring pupil progress, and an indication of homework. She was further directed to review the school Board's curriculum for computer education and to indicate in her plans which standards and skills were being taught. She was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she did not have student folders with student work. There was no evidence of quizzes, classwork, homework, or a variety of test formats. As a prescription, she: was directed to develop a folder for each student and to file at least one graded paper per week in the files. The files were to include samples of homework, classwork, and tests. She was directed to submit her gradebook for review every Friday. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by Grimsley on November 16, 1988. She was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because there was no evidence in her gradebook or in the student folders that she was administering tests or quizzes. As a prescription, she was directed to construct a sample test and to show it to the principal for discussion. She was directed to administer tests biweekly and to submit copies to the principal prior to administering them. She was directed to construct tests which reflected a variety of test formats and to read certain pages in the TADS Prescription Manual which deals with the construction of tests. She was directed to place grades in a traditional gradebook. Respondent began keeping two sets of gradebooks -- one computerized set which she used, and a traditional rollbook to satisfy Grimsley. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on December 12, 1988. The purpose of the conference was to put Respondent on notice that if her deficiencies were not corrected, there was a possibility that she would be recommended for separation from the school system. Some lesson plans had been submitted by Respondent, but not every week as prescribed, and a traditional gradebook had not been submitted to the administrators. During the conference, Respondent asked permission again to use electronic spreadsheets rather than the standard gradebook, but Respondent was directed to keep a standard gradebook with attendance and grades. Grimsley did indicate that she would determine if an electronic spreadsheet was an substitute. Test formatting and homework were also discussed. Grimsley explained that the School Board requires teachers to give homework that relates to classroom activities and to note same in the gradebook. There was no indication that Respondent was giving homework. Respondent was put on notice that she needed three consecutive acceptable classroom observations in order to be continued in her employment. She was further advised that an external review would take place. An external review is an observation done by a non-school site administrator and a school site administrator simultaneously. Each one prepares an observation report, and these are combined by mathematical formula. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on February 2, 1989, by Assistant Principal Orlando Milligan and was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques. Although the School Board requires that students' work be retained throughout the school year and the school year was more than half over, Respondent still failed to maintain student folders with student work. There was no evidence of assessments such as quizzes, classwork, and homework so that administrators could assess whether pupil progress reflected the objectives in the curriculum. As a prescription, Milligan directed Respondent to maintain samples of student work in student folders and to maintain a decipherable traditional gradebook. She was given until March 3, 1989, to complete this prescription. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on April 24, 1989, for not having complied with her prescriptive directives or showing the administration a computerized gradebook or a traditional gradebook. She was advised that an external review was scheduled for April 27, 1989, to be conducted by Milligan and Dr. Mildred Berry, a non-school site science supervisor. Respondent was also told that the external review would occur during her second period class. She was told that even if the first external review were satisfactory, another would be required in order to meet the requirement for two successful summatives. A summative is a combination of two observations. Therefore, it takes at least three acceptable observations to result in two acceptable summatives. Respondent was also advised that her future employment with the school system was in jeopardy At the conference, Respondent was still discussing a computerized method of keeping grades and attendance. She was again directed to maintain a standard gradebook and to keep sampled of students' work. The first external review took place as scheduled on April 27, 1989, by Milligan and Berry. Milligan looked at the folders for the class he was observing and found samples of student work in the folders. He did have difficulty correlating the work in the folders with the gradebook and found the gradebook difficult to understand. He was about to rate Respondent unsatisfactory in assessment techniques but Berry explained to him that the keeping of student folders does not relate to assessment techniques Because of her insistence, the two of them reviewed the TADS Manual and Milligan found that Berry was correct. The concerns that he saw did not come under Category VI, Assessment Techniques, but rather came under Category VII, Professional Responsibilities. Category VII is not reflected on the classroom observation reports and is not part, therefore, of the formal classroom observation Milligan and Berry individually each rated Respondent acceptable in all categories. Berry's observation report contained the remark that "all students were actively involved in class activities." In spite of finding out that he had misunderstood the TADS evaluation system, Milligan did not go back and correct his February 2, 1989, observation report on Respondent where he had erroneously marked Respondent unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques based upon her failure to have student folders. If Milligan had gone back and corrected his February 2, 1989, observation of Respondent once he correctly understood the TADS evaluation system, then Milligan's formal observation of Respondent on February 2, 1989, would have resulted in her being marked acceptable in all categories. A second external review was conducted by Grimsley and Nelson Diaz, Area Director, on May 24, 1989. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in all categories except teacher-student relationships. She was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Grimsley and Diaz observed students walk into the classroom, walk over to their computers, load their computers, and begin working on their projects. Respondent sent a few of the students to the library to do some research and spent the remainder of the class period walking around the room stopping to talk individually and work individually with each student. At times, some of the students were observed making comments to each other or writing notes, getting out of their seats, or laughing. Neither Grimsley nor Diaz attempted to ascertain if the comments or notes were related to students working with each other on their programs or if the students left their seats simply to go to the printer to retrieve a hard copy of their work. They did observe Respondent work individually with each student throughout the class period. Diaz became confused. The TADS observation form requires that certain teaching behaviors be observed during the lesson in order that the form can be completed. Because of the type of class conducted by Respondent, the observers could not observe the required teaching behaviors in order to complete their forms. Since Diaz believes that teachers usually try to do their very best when they know there will be a outside observer, he became concerned that perhaps Respondent was ill. Diaz requested that a post observation conference be held immediately so that he could determine whether there were extenuating circumstances for what he had observed. Respondent was requested to bring her gradebook to the conference because Diaz was not able to correlate the grades in the gradebook with the work in the folders. When the gradebook was discussed at the conference, Respondent told Diaz that she kept a traditional gradebook to satisfy Grimsley. When asked why she did not give the students tests, Respondent told him that her students could not read. Respondent had previously determined that when she gave students tests, the grades they received from the written materials did not reflect their understanding or progress as was observed by her when they did their actual "hands-on" computer programming and activities. Diaz noted that the students were reading their computer screens and were reading a sheet that they were following. He did not, however, note whether the computer screens; and the sheets the students were following contained words or pictures. Although Respondent had a lesson plan for that day, Diaz and Grimsley determined that she did not follow the plan. They concluded that she gave no instruction to her class on that day. They further concluded that the lesson plan used by Respondent, although a form lesson plan picked up by teachers in curriculum offices at schools, did not comply with the labor contract provisions in that it did not list homework. Further, an administrator could not look at the lesson plan and know what the teacher would be doing in the classroom because the lesson plan contained a listing of potential activities but did not note which specific ones would occur. At the conference with Diaz and Grimsley, the suggestion was made to Respondent, for the first time in the three years that she had been teaching at Brownsville, that she consult with a computer teacher at another school in order to ascertain how other computer teachers had made provision for tests, homework, student folders, and gradebooks. Eights days later, on June 1, 1989, Grimsley finalized Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year by rating Respondent as acceptable in the areas of teacher- student relationships and professional responsibility. She rated Respondent as unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. The overall summary ratings of acceptable and unacceptable were left blank; however, she checked the box marked "not recommended for employment." A conference-for-the-record was held by Grimsley on June 5, 1989, to discuss Respondent's performance to date, her unacceptable annual evaluations, and her future employment status with the Dade County Public Schools. Grimsley noted that at that time Respondent had still not remediated her deficiencies and was still on prescription. Prior to Respondent's suspension from her employment in August, 1989, there was no state teacher certification in computer education. There were also no other computer teachers at Brownsville to assist Respondent in the problems she was having. Although it was clear to Grimsley for three years that Respondent was having difficulties in conforming her computer class with a traditional academic class, Grimsley never suggested to Respondent that Respondent obtain assistance from other computer teachers to see how they had overcome such difficulties. That suggestion, withheld for three years, came during the conference among Grimsley, Diaz, and Respondent, just eight days before Grimsley recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. Respondent maintained student grades and attendance on computerized spreadsheets. Further, Respondent maintained samples of student work on their computer disks. On at least one occasion Respondent showed copies of her grading and attendance spreadsheets to Grimsley, but Grimsley rudely brushed her hand across them and stated that she could not read them. Thereafter, Respondent did not show them to Grimsley. Cecelia Dunn, who served as Respondent's department head, saw Respondent's student records consisting of a file box with students' names, grades and attendance marked on cards and also Respondent's computer printouts with grades and attendance on them. She found Respondent'S records to be acceptable and thorough but suggested to Respondent that she also transfer this information to a traditional gradebook. There is no question that Respondent kept students' grades and attendance records; she did not keep them in a traditional gradebook. It is also clear that Respondent kept samples of students' work on computer disks. However, she did not consistently reproduce a hard copy of that work to maintain in the students' folders. Respondent does not know how to adapt the record keeping that is used in a traditional academic class to a computer class. In a traditional class all students work on the same assignments on the same day. In a computer class, students work on projects at their own speed over extended periods of time. She does not know how to give daily grades to a student working on a project over an extended period. Respondent does not know how to give homework in a computer class to students who do not have computers at home. Although Senita once suggested to her that she require her students to read newspaper articles about computers, Respondent's students do not receive newspapers at home and therefore cannot comply with such a requirement. Respondent agrees that Grimsley gave her a number of suggestions on a number of occasions as to how she could correct her deficiencies. However, the suggestions given by Grimsley, a former English teacher herself, would work in an English class but would not work in a computer class. No suggestion given by Grimsley during the three years that Respondent taught at Brownsville was tailored to a computer class. No suggestion was made during the first year as to how Respondent could comply with traditional requirements in a classroom with non-functioning equipment and textbooks written for college students. Similarly, Grimsley's conclusion on her last formal evaluation of Respondent that Respondent did not teach fails to take into consideration the fact that Grimsley observed Respondent giving individual instruction, the kind of instruction which is appropriate for a computer class. Grimsley never suggested to Respondent how Respondent could give lectures during her classes. The only computer teacher to testify in this proceeding also keeps his records of students grades by using electronic spreadsheets. However, he prints out those spreadsheets and places the sheets inside a traditional gradebook and prints out hard copies of the students' work for folders simply because his class does not always meet in the computer room but must meet on frequent occasions in a regular classroom. That teacher is a teacher on special assignment who runs the MAGNET program wherein students use computers for everything. He testified that it takes a lot more time to teach computers than other courses Respondent's colleagues hold her in high esteem as a very knowledgeable, excellent teacher. Her students always appear to be actively involved in their classroom work. They are always "on task." With their adherence to the formal evaluation instrument and traditional classroom techniques, Grimsley and Senita were not able to determine whether Respondent was following the School Board's computer curriculum or whether Respondent was providing her students with the minimal educational experience required by State Board rule. They admitted at final hearing that they could not say that she was not following the curriculum or that she was not providing her students with the minimum educational experience. There is no allegation that Respondent did not in fact assess her students or grade them appropriately although Respondent did not always keep records of those assessments in a traditional format. Similarly, it cannot be said that Respondent failed to prepare, keep, and submit all records and reports required by School Board rules. It can be said that she did not prepare, keep, and submit all records and reports required by administrative directives issued by Grimsley to her. On the other hand, it cannot be said that she knew how to do what Grlmsley instructed her to do, and it is clear that Grimsley referred her to no resources in the computer education field to assist her in learning how to do what Grimsley wanted her to do. It can only be said that Grimsley repeated the same prescriptions; it cannot be said that those things were helpful to Respondent in remediating her deficiencies. It is not suggested that Grimsley, Senita, or Dunn refused to assist Respondent in overcoming her record keeping deficiencies or in solving her problems with giving quizzes and homework assignments. There is no evidence that any of those persons knew how to assist Respondent in adapting a "hands-on" computer course to the standard record keeping requirements or all of the traditional assessment techniques. Respondent neither intentionally nor willfully disobeyed instructions given to her by her administrators. She was, however, unable to consistently comply with their directives due to the demands of day-to-day teaching, in a technical non- traditional subject area, without adequate resources and materials.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reinstating the Respondent Patsy Moore to a teaching position in English education or computer education on a one-year probationary contract basis and providing that Respondent shall receive no back pay for the period of her suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 10th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4857 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 8-15, 17-25, 27-40, 42- 46, 48, 51, 53, and 55 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 7 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's ,proposed findings of fact numbered 16, 26, 47, 49, 50, 52, 56, and 57 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 41 has been rejected as being unnecessary for the determination of the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 54 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-18 and 20-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Patricia Bass, Esquire School Board of Dade County Board Administration Building Suite 301 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Lorraine C. Hoffman, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Paul W. Bell, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Did the Respondent, Audie Lewis, violate the Petitioner, City of Cape Coral’s (Cape Coral), End User Computing Policy and ordinances of Cape Coral prohibiting an employee from unauthorized use of equipment and conduct detrimental to the interest of the city? If he did, what discipline is proper?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Cape Coral employed Mr. Lewis as a business recruitment specialist in the City’s Economic Development Office. Until this matter, Mr. Lewis was a satisfactory employee. He has no history of discipline. The city manager is responsible for deciding whether to terminate the employment of Cape Coral employees who are not supervised by a city department director. Mr. Lewis did not work in an office with a department director. Consequently he was under the supervision of the city manager. Chapter 2, section 2-31.1 of Cape Coral’s Code of Ordinances states that employees may only be disciplined for cause. It also establishes progressive discipline as the usual practice. But chapter 2, section 2-31.2 states: “The city, however, reserves the right to impose even the most severe discipline as an initial measure when circumstances warrant.” Cape Coral’s Administrative Regulation 46 (AR-46) page 3(J) states that every computer user must comply with all applicable policies. It cautions: “Non-compliance may result in disciplinary action up to and including discharge.” On April 20, 2016, the city manager terminated Mr. Lewis’s employment pursuant to chapter 2, section 2-31.3 of the Code of Ordinances and AR-46, the City’s End User Computing Policy. The relevant part of the Code section states: One or more of the following reasons shall constitute cause for disciplinary action: * * * (t) Unauthorized use of city personnel services, supplies, property, facilities, or equipment; * * * (hh) Actions or conduct detrimental to the interests of the city; In pertinent part, AR-46, page 6(E), states: Material that is fraudulent, harassing, embarrassing, sexually explicit, profane, obscene, intimidating, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or inappropriate may not be sent by email or other form of electronic communication or displayed on or stored in the City’s computers including, but not limited to, messages and material with sexual comments, obscenities, pornography, abusive or degrading language, antisocial behavior, or inappropriate comments concerning race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, or disability. Any message received that contains intimidating, hostile, or offensive material should be reported immediately to management so that appropriate measures can be taken. The End User Computing Policy prohibits use of the internet to view or download material that contains pornography or that is sexually explicit. Mr. Lewis knew of the policy contained in AR-46. The city manager based Mr. Lewis’s termination on “[u]nauthorized use of city personnel services, supplies, property, facilities or equipment,” “[a]ctions or conduct detrimental to the interests of the city,” and “[v]iolation of Administration Regulation 46 End User Computing Policy.” Cape Coral maintains a “zero tolerance” policy for pornography. This is a core part of Cape Coral’s commitment to a culture of professionalism. One reason for the policy is that the proximity of computer users to each other means one user’s display of pornographic images may be viewed by other users. On March 9, 2016, Cape Coral’s “Intrusion Prevent/Detection System” alerted the Information Technology Services Department (ITS) that city computer “cm5465” was connected to a web server possibly associated with adult content. The alert cautioned that the connection may lead to a malware infection and recommended checking the computer to ensure it had not been compromised. The computer was assigned to and used by Mr. Lewis. There is no persuasive evidence that others used the computer. On March 18, 2016, ITS’ network security administrator, Elizabeth Merriken, sent the human resources director a memorandum advising her of the activity. Ms. Merriken attached a report generated by Checkpoint, a security system the city uses to monitor traffic to and from city computers through the firewall. The system also monitors URLs visited and compares them to lists of URLs for suspect sites, such as pornography sites. It reported visits from Mr. Lewis’s computer to 85 suspect sites. The system functions automatically and cannot be manipulated. The report covered traffic for Mr. Lewis’s computer from March 7 through 10, 2016. ITS duplicated the hard drive of Mr. Lewis’s computer in order to analyze it and his internet activity. Ms. Merriken conducted a forensic analysis of the duplicate hard drive. The analysis did not find any evidence of a virus or malware. An analysis using the forensic software program, “Magnet Internet Evidence Finder,” found several pornographic items. It also found that a great deal of history had been deleted shortly after Mr. Lewis learned of the inquiry into his computer use. The analysis found over 100,000 pictures and more than 1,500 videos. During March 8 and 9, 2016, Mr. Lewis’s computer accessed pornographic websites approximately 85 times. ITS contracted with DR Data Security, LLC (Data Security), to conduct further forensic analysis of the hard drive from Mr. Lewis’s computer. Ryan Irving conducted the analysis for Data Security. Mr. Irving conducted his analysis using standard forensic tools. They included SigCheck, Internet Evidence Finder 6.7, Winhex 18.7, IE Cache View, and SANS Investigative Forensic Toolkit 3.0. His analysis corroborated the report from the City’s analysis of March 8 and 9. It also identified similar activity between June and December of 2015. Mr. Irving recovered 54 images from Mr. Lewis’s computer downloaded in December 2015. The images include topless women and nude women, alone and paired in sexually explicit poses. The city manager notified Mr. Lewis of his intent to impose discipline. Cape Coral complied with its due process policies, providing Mr. Lewis notice of the charges against him and the evidence relied upon. It also gave him an opportunity to rebut or explain the information. Mr. Lewis’s statements during a pre-disciplinary interview acknowledging that he might have “accidentally” seen nude images while using Google to search for work-related subjects corroborate the reports of the images and visits to pornographic websites. The testimony that so many images would have been displayed “accidentally” is implausible; there is no expert testimony to support it and no testimony about what search subjects would have generated the images. A brief list of search terms and some of the sites visited demonstrates the implausibility of the “accidental visitation.” They include: Debbie Davis Playboy Centerfold, images.playboy.com, teen pornmovies.ratedxblogs.com, lustfulpics.com, boobieblog.com, glamourcenterfolds.com, and spylove.com, interspersed with URLs for more prosaic sites, such as Amazon and Etsy. After considering all of the information, the city manager issued a “Final Notice of Discipline” letter to Mr. Lewis, terminating his employment, stating the grounds for the termination, and advising Mr. Lewis of his right to seek review. Mr. Lewis repeatedly used his city computer to view websites with pornographic images. This activity was an unauthorized use of city equipment. Mr. Lewis used his city computer to display pornography. Mr. Lewis used his city computer to intentionally view and download electronic material that contains pornography and was sexually explicit from the internet. Mr. Lewis’s activities, summarized in paragraphs 19 through 21, were willful.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued February 17, 2005, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for investigating complaints against teachers holding Florida educator certificates for violations of Section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and, in those cases in which probable cause is found, the Commissioner is responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting a person holding a Florida educator certificate. § 1012.796, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to Section 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes, the Education Practices Commission ("EPC") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in that statute. Mr. Sorensen holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 807290. In 1998, Mr. Sorensen was hired by the Broward County public school system as an exceptional student education teacher and coach, and, from 1998 to the times material to this proceeding, he taught and coached various sports teams at McArthur High School ("McArthur"). From 1992 until his employment as a teacher, Mr. Sorensen was employed by the Broward County public school system as an assistant coach, a teacher's aide, and a substitute teacher. Mr. Sorensen was a very popular teacher and coach with the students at McArthur. Mr. Sorensen was removed from the classroom in the spring of 2001, and he has not worked with children since that time. Mr. Sorensen resigned his position with the Broward County School Board in 2005. Mr. Sorensen married in April 2002, and he currently resides with his wife and two children in Ocala, Florida. Mr. Sorensen has not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action or complaint by a student or fellow teacher. R.J. began attending McArthur in the 1999-2000 school year as a freshman. During the 2000-2001 school year, R.J. was in the 10th grade. R.J. turned 16 years of age during the three months material to this proceeding. Until the events that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. Sorensen did not know R.J., although he knew of her from having seen her around school. R.J. knew Mr. Sorensen from seeing him at school, and she eventually introduced herself to him. On the evening of March 1, 2001, R.J. and Officer Tomas Hernandez had a conversation at South Broward High School. R.J. was attending night classes to make up some high school credits, and Officer Hernandez was working on his off-duty hours as a security guard at the school. Officer Hernandez's normal assignment was as a school resource officer at McArthur. During the conversation, R.J. mentioned to Officer Hernandez that he needed to watch one of the teachers at McArthur. Officer Hernandez pressed R.J. to identify the teacher, and she told him it was "Coach" Sorensen. According to Officer Hernandez's report, R.J. told him that Mr. Sorensen had pictures of naked female McArthur students on his school laptop computer; that he had shown these photographs to her; and that, while she was chatting with Mr. Sorensen by computer, he told her that he had a place at the beach, and she "felt" he wanted her to go there with him.4 Officer Hernandez reported the information to the Hollywood Police Department early the next morning, March 2, 2001, and he was told to transport R.J. from McArthur to the police station for an interview. Officer Hernandez then contacted R.J.'s father and her sister.5 R.J. was taken out of her first-period class shortly after school started. Officer Hernandez took her by car to the Hollywood police station, where she was interviewed by Detectives Navarro and Horne. At this time, R.J. gave a sworn statement regarding her contacts with Mr. Sorensen. Investigations of the charges R.J. made against Mr. Sorensen were conducted concurrently by the Hollywood Police Department and the Broward County School Board. As a result of the investigation by the Hollywood Police Department, Mr. Sorensen was arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, which is a felony. He pled nolo contendere to a lesser charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor. Adjudication was withheld, and Mr. Sorensen was placed on probation for one year, which he successfully completed.6 Information about the accusations R.J. had made about Mr. Sorensen found its way to the media, and R.J. was pursued by reporters at school and at her home. R.J. felt that the students at McArthur were hostile towards her, and she claimed to have received threats from fellow students, both in person and on the Internet, in which she was told to drop the charges against Mr. Sorensen. R.J. spoke with Beverly James, the principal at McArthur, about her fears for her safety. Ms. James apparently did not allay her concerns, and R.J. moved to her sister's home and transferred to South Broward High School. R.J. quit school a few months later because she felt that the students and some of the teachers at South Broward High School "looked at [her] wrong" and were "cold" towards her.7 Photographs At or about the end of January or the beginning of February 2001, a member of McArthur's yearbook staff showed Mr. Sorensen the layout for the photographs of the wrestling team. Mr. Sorensen noticed that the photographs included several students who had been members of the wrestling team but who had quit the team after the photographs were taken for the yearbook. Mr. Sorensen felt it was unfair to include students in the yearbook photographs who were not, at the time, members of the team. Mr. Sorensen decided to provide the yearbook staff with some photographs of the then-current wresting team from his own collection to substitute in the yearbook for the out-dated photographs. Mr. Sorensen forgot to go through his photographs at home to choose the ones he wanted to give to the yearbook staff. He remembered one morning as he was getting ready to leave for school, and he grabbed a packet containing his personal photographs and tossed the packet into his duffle bag.8 Mr. Sorensen kept supplies for his wrestling team, such as tape and ointment, in the duffle bag. Mr. Sorensen put the duffle bag into his truck. At some point, while Mr. Sorensen was driving several members of his wrestling team to practice, two male students who were seniors at McArthur, opened the duffle bag, discovered the packet of photographs, and began looking through them. The students came across a photograph of a nude female and several other pictures of females who were semi-nude or wearing thong bikinis. When Mr. Sorensen noticed the two students looking at these photographs, he told them to put the photographs back in the duffle bag. Mr. Sorensen did not take the photographs from the students because he was driving at the time, but the students put the photographs back into the duffle bag. After practice, Mr. Sorensen went to McArthur and dropped off his duffle bag in his classroom. At some point, Mr. Sorensen took the packet of photographs out of the duffle bag and put them in the bottom left-hand drawer of the desk in his classroom. Mr. Sorensen later looked through some of the photographs and chose several photographs of the wrestling team that he wanted to include in the yearbook. R.J. often went into Mr. Sorensen's classroom during the school day, sometimes to see her friend, M., who was in Mr. Sorensen's special education class. R.J. regularly checked her e-mail on Mr. Sorensen's school computer and hung around his desk. At some point in the two weeks prior to her conversation with Officer Hernandez, R.J. went through the photographs in Mr. Sorensen's desk drawer. She saw two photographs of nude or semi-nude females, several photographs of females in thong bikinis, and a photograph of a McArthur student named Mandy, whom R.J. knew from school. Except for Mandy, R.J. did not know the identity of the females in these photographs. Contrary to her statements to Officer Hernandez and Detectives Navarro and Horne, R.J. did not see any photographs of nude or partially nude women on Mr. Sorensen's classroom computer or on his school laptop computer. After R.J. gave her statement to Detectives Navarro and Horne, a number of school and local police investigators, together with Ms. James, McArthur's principal, went to Mr. Sorensen's classroom and asked if they could look through his desk. Several photographs of nude, semi-nude, and scantily- clad females were found among the photographs in Mr. Sorensen's desk drawer. The investigators also confiscated Mr. Sorensen's computer, and it was sent to an Apple Computer technician located outside of Florida, who recovered one photograph of a partially nude woman from the computer's hard drive.9 About a week before Mr. Sorensen's desk was searched, Mandy, who was a 12th grade student at McArthur, gave Mr. Sorensen a photograph of herself wearing tight clothing and standing in a provocative pose; the student had written her name and telephone numbers on the back. Mr. Sorensen put the photograph in his desk drawer, with the other photographs. The photograph of Mandy was among those discovered in the search of Mr. Sorensen's desk drawer. In addition to the photographs he kept in his desk drawer, Mr. Sorensen had numerous photographs on the top of his desk, under glass or plastic, including photographs of ex- girlfriends, of females in both regular and bikini bathing suits, and of members of the various sports teams he coached. These photographs were visible to anyone who came into his classroom and had been on his desk for quite a long time. None of the photographs on the top of the desk were considered to be inappropriate by McArthur's principal. Even if Mr. Sorensen did not realize when he put the packet of photographs into his duffle bag that photographs of a nude and several scantily-clad females were among the other photographs he took from his house, it is reasonable to infer that he knew that these pictures were among the ones he put into his desk drawer because he knew that two members of his wrestling team had gone through the photographs in the duffle bag and had looked at these photographs. In addition, Mr. Sorensen had himself gone through a number of the photographs after he put them in the desk drawer. In placing and leaving these photographs for over a month in his classroom desk where they were accessible to students, Mr. Sorensen created conditions that were potentially harmful to learning and to the mental health of any student who might happen to see the photographs in his desk. This conduct also exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment if a student were to come across the inappropriate photographs in Mr. Sorensen's desk. The evidence presented by the Commissioner is, however, not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Sorensen showed the photographs to any students.10 Inappropriate communications of a sexual nature Mr. Sorensen maintained an Internet access account with America Online ("AOL"), and he had a screen-name he used for instant messaging feature on the Internet. One feature of AOL instant messaging is a "buddy list" in which a person can list the screen-names of other AOL instant-messaging users; when a person logs onto the Internet, all users who have that person's screen-name on their "buddy lists" are alerted that the person is online. Mr. Sorensen gave his AOL instant-messaging screen- name to numerous students at McArthur, including students in his class and members of the various teams he coached, so they could contact him about school work and schedules. If he was on the "buddy list" of any of these individuals, they would be alerted whenever he logged onto the Internet through AOL, and they could send him instant messages. Mr. Sorensen logged onto AOL to check his e-mail every night, and he would regularly receive instant messages from McArthur students. For the most part, these messages had no substance but consisted primarily of students and Mr. Sorensen asking each other what was going on. Mr. Sorensen and R.J. exchanged instant messages on an average of every other day for about four months prior to March 1, 2001.11 On most occasions, their exchanges consisted of short discussions of events at school. On several occasions, R.J. and Mr. Sorensen discussed R.J.'s boyfriend, and R.J. confided in Mr. Sorensen that she was pregnant and intended to get an abortion.12 R.J. did not report any inappropriate sexual communications from Mr. Sorensen until her conversation with Officer Hernandez, even though, on more than one occasion, Officer Flasher observed R.J. instant messaging Mr. Sorensen on the computer owned by Officer Flasher and questioned her about e-mailing a teacher.13 In considering and weighing the evidence submitted in this case relating to Mr. Sorensen's alleged inappropriate sexual communications with R.J., the undersigned has been mindful that, as discussed further in the Conclusions of Law below, the Commissioner bears the burden in this case of proving by clear and convincing evidence the factual bases for the statutory and rule violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner presented evidence to the effect that Mr. Sorensen engaged in the sexual misconduct described in the Administrative Complaint, but the totality of the evidence presented by the Commissioner is not sufficiently persuasive to constitute clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Sorensen committed the acts of sexual misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint.14
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order: Dismissing Counts 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the Administrative Complaint; Finding Dana Sorensen guilty of having violated Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); and 2. Placing Mr. Sorensen on probation for a term of two years and under such conditions as the Education Practices Commission shall deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 21st day of February, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent left a kindergarten student, K.M., alone in her classroom on April 2, 2018, as alleged in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record and evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material fact: Stipulated Facts Respondent holds Educator Certificate 1168653, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Foreign Languages, and Exceptional Student Education (“ESE”), valid through June 30, 2021. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed as a kindergarten teacher at Sunland Park Academy, in the school district of Broward County, Florida. Evidence Presented at the Hearing Samiyeh Nasser During the 2017-2018 school year, Samiyeh Nasser (“Nasser”) was employed as a Teacher’s Assistant at Sunland Park Academy in the Broward County School district. She worked with the kindergarten classes. Nasser “pulled out” students, removing them from a teacher’s class and bringing them to her own room to provide extra help with reading, spelling, and word pronunciation. She regularly went to Leger’s classroom during first period each day, at approximately 9:00 a.m., and would take four or five students to her own classroom. She would then bring them back to their regular class to attend “specials,” which are elective classes. On April 2, 2018, when Nasser returned children to Leger’s classroom, at 10:05 a.m. that day, she noticed that the other students had already left the room, but that there was one student, K.M., there alone. When Nasser found her, K.M. was crying. When Nasser asked her why she was alone, K.M. said that her classmates had gone to physical education class (“P.E.”), and that she had been told by her teacher, Respondent, to stay in the classroom. Based on other credible evidence, K.M.’s comment to Nasser regarding having to “stay in the classroom” referred to a counseling conversation which Leger had with K.M. earlier in the morning, prior to the class leaving for P.E. She did not mention anything to Nasser about Steven Bynes (“Bynes”), a pool substitute who had assumed responsibility for the class in Respondent’s absence. Nasser opened the back door to the classroom, saw the other students at P.E., and instructed the small group of students she brought back to the classroom to join them outside. She did not see either Leger or Bynes with the students at P.E. when she found K.M. Nasser remained with K.M. briefly, hugged her to calm her down, and then left her in the room as she went on to assume her other duties. She was in Leger’s classroom a total of approximately five to seven minutes. Steven Bynes, Jr. Steven Bynes, Jr., was employed as a pool substitute at Sunland Park Academy during the 2017-2018 school year. He provided coverage when teachers were absent or out, and no outside substitute was hired for the day. On April 2, 2018, he was instructed to cover Leger’s class while Leger attended a meeting.1 Bynes was in Respondent’s classroom for approximately 20 minutes. Leger returned to the classroom while Bynes was still there and advised him that the class had “specials.” Bynes claimed that he advised Leger that it was two minutes before the class was to go to P.E., and advised her that she “still had time” to take them there. 1 This was a meeting between Leger, the guidance counselor, and a parent mentioned later in this Recommended Order, paragraph 60 infra. He claimed that Leger did not say anything to him, and he left the classroom to return to the front office. After the fact, Bynes was told that a student had been left in the classroom, but he denied knowledge of it and denied responsibility for leaving K.M. in the classroom. He claimed he left the class with Leger. He also denied having any conversation with K.M. in the classroom. Bynes denied taking the class to P.E. and stated that when he left the classroom, he left the students with Leger.2 Nikia Ragin Nikia Ragin (“Ragin”) was the Assistant Principal at Sunland Park Academy during the 2017-2018 school year. She was told by the Principal that Nasser had reported an incident concerning a student, K.M. After speaking to Nasser, she spoke to K.M. Ragin spoke to K.M. approximately two hours after the event took place, and then reported to the Principal. Ragin was also present when Leger explained to the Principal that Bynes, not she, had taken the students to P.E. Other than Leger’s statement, Ragin found no other evidence to conclude that Bynes had taken the students to P.E. Ragin’s conclusion regarding the evidence, at that point, was misguided and affected because the school surveillance cameras that would likely show who took the students to P.E. were not operating properly.3 Leger elaborated and explained to Ragin that she was in a meeting with the guidance counselor when the students went to specials. 2 Notably, Bynes said he didn’t really remember what Leger said or did after he advised her that she still had time to take the class to specials. Curiously, after he said this, he testified that he simply “walked out of the classroom.” This description by Bynes was significantly at odds with Leger’s testimony and recollection of the same discussion. Bynes seemed vague and uncertain at times regarding the incident. Leger’s description of her encounter and discussion with Bynes when she returned, is more persuasive and credible, and is adopted. 3 The camera tapes had been reviewed by Ragin because of Leger’s claim about not taking the students to P.E. Had the surveillance cameras been working, there would have been clear images of the kindergarten hallways and other relevant areas. There were also other inoperative cameras, that if working properly, would have shown relevant views of the hallway leading to and from the office of the guidance counselor. Sharonda Bailey Sunland Park Academy Principal, Sharonda Bailey (“Bailey”), received a report from Nasser about a student in Leger’s class. She referred the matter to Ragin, and saw her speaking with Nasser and also with K.M. Bailey recalled that Bynes had been in the classroom that day to cover the class. She asked him if anything had occurred when he was in the classroom. Bynes told Bailey that Leger had returned to the classroom and said something about the students being late for specials. Bynes recounted to Bailey that he explained to Leger that they weren’t that late, that she should take them herself, and that he then walked out the front door. When she spoke with Respondent, Leger stated to her that she did not leave a student in the classroom and that Bynes was the person who took the students to P.E. Bailey also attempted to verify who took the students to P.E. through the school’s security cameras. However, because the camera system was antiquated, it had not captured or recorded what she needed to see. The security cameras glitched and froze, and the time stamp was off. In short, the cameras were not capable of adequately displaying Respondent’s location or movement in the hallways because its quality was so poor.4 4 The security videos of the kindergarten hallway and the area outside the office of the guidance counselor were requested by Leger during discovery. However, they were not provided to her and were not used or shown at the final hearing. Bailey contacted K.M.’s mother and told her that her child was left alone in the classroom while the rest of the class was taken to specials. She explained that she would investigate the incident. Because Bailey was not able to find anyone during the investigation to validate Respondent’s position that she did not leave the student behind, she issued a written reprimand to Leger. Bailey did not speak at length with K.M. about the incident, but merely asked if she was okay. Private Investigator William Miller William Miller (“Miller”) was retained by Leger’s counsel to attempt to locate K.M. He ultimately located her in Gulfport, Mississippi. He telephoned K.M.’s mother, Shirelle M. He reached her in her car on her way to pick up K.M. from school. Later that day, Miller was also able to speak directly to K.M.5 Miller asked K.M. if she remembered the incident. K.M. explained that Respondent went to a meeting, and that the class had been turned over to a substitute teacher by the name of Mr. Bynes. She told him Bynes took the class to P.E. outside the classroom. K.M. related to Miller that she told Bynes she had been bad, and that Respondent had told her she could not go outside for P.E. K.M. stated that Bynes then told her to “wait in the classroom” and he took the rest of the class to P.E. Miller testified that neither he nor K.M.’s mother provided her with any background, mentioned Bynes, or in any way suggested what information they wanted from her. Miller had work experience interviewing juvenile witnesses and testified that he “assiduously avoided” leading K.M., because they are so prone to being improperly led when questioned. 5 Shirelle M. had called back about 30 minutes later and Miller spoke to K.M. on her mother’s speaker phone while they were in the car together. Miller recounted that K.M.’s mother expressed surprise that K.M. recalled the name of Bynes, and assured Miller that she had not coached K.M. in any way.6 Based on his interviews over the phone, affidavits were prepared for K.M. and her mother, which documented the verbal information they had provided to Miller. The affidavits were given to K.M.’s mother. Miller explained to her that the affidavits should be their testimony, and not the testimony of either Miller or the attorney in the case. He also explained that if there were any changes that needed to be made, she should make the changes, send the affidavit back to him, and that the affidavits could be redone, if necessary. Miller asked the mother to read and go over the affidavit that K.M. was being asked to sign. Miller arranged to have a notary go to their apartment in Mississippi to have the mother and the child execute the affidavits. Before this occurred, he was able to reach Shirelle M. by telephone. She apologized and told him that the delay in executing the affidavit stemmed from the fact that she had changed jobs, and that the Gulf Coast had experienced three separate hurricanes since he had last spoken to her. Miller explained to her that he did not want it to be inconvenient and that he would make the arrangements necessary to get a notary to her to be able to notarize the affidavits. The notary was given specific instructions to tell Shirelle M. and K.M. that they did not have to sign the affidavits, and could make any changes to them that they wanted. Despite the delay in securing her signature, Miller still felt that the mother did not have any hesitation signing her affidavit. 6 K.M.’s mother had been told of the incident, but had not been told about Bynes at the time of the incident. Ruth Galliard Leger Respondent was K.M.’s kindergarten teacher at Sunland Park Academy during the 2017-2018 school year. She recalled that K.M. was a good student and they got along well. Sometime during the morning of April 2, 2018, Respondent requested an emergency meeting with the school’s guidance counselor and the parent of a male student. The male student had come in late to class that day. He became disruptive, knocking teaching items, like posters and magnets, to the floor.7 The meeting was scheduled by the guidance counselor. Respondent left for the meeting when Bynes arrived at her classroom to provide coverage. Earlier that morning, K.M. had also been disruptive. Respondent counseled her and told her that if she did it again, Respondent would take some time from her P.E., consistent with the class rules, and that she would have to stay behind in the classroom with Respondent for a few minutes of her P.E. time.8 On the day of the incident, the class had P.E. scheduled at 10:10 a.m. When Respondent left for her meeting, the class had not yet gone to P.E. During the meeting with the guidance counselor, Respondent excused herself and returned briefly to her classroom to retrieve a form that needed to be signed by those in attendance at the conference. Resp. Ex. 1. When she entered the room to get the form, Bynes was there with her students. Respondent explained to Bynes that she forgot the form, and that her meeting with the counselor and parent was not over. Respondent asked Bynes what time it was and when he told her that it was approximately 10:15 a.m., she reminded him that the class had specials at 10:10 a.m. 7 This was out character for him, prompting Respondent to request the emergency meeting. 8 Four other students had also been counseled that morning about their conduct and the consequences before Respondent went to her meeting with the counselor. Bynes said that they had only missed five minutes, and the class could still go to P.E. Respondent retrieved the form she needed, went out the front door into the kindergarten hallway, and back to her meeting. The class was in the room with Bynes when Respondent departed to go back to the meeting. However, she did not see Bynes take the students to P.E. After the meeting with the counselor and the parent, Respondent left the counselor’s office. Respondent and the student’s parent stood in the first- grade hallway talking for several minutes.9 Respondent then walked the mother to the front door of the school, where there are more cameras, and parted company with her. Leger then proceeded down the hallway back to her classroom. When she got back, she was shocked to find K.M. standing in the room by herself. When she asked K.M. why she was in the room, K.M. explained that she had remembered that Leger previously told her that she owed time from P.E. for misbehaving. As a result, she decided to stay behind in the room when the others went to P.E. Respondent did not recall telling K.M. to “stay back” from P.E. Leger told K.M. that she did not have to remain behind, that she wasn’t upset with her, and that she should have gone to P.E. with the rest of the kids. Since there were five minutes left in the P.E. class, Respondent took K.M. out to P.E. When Respondent picked up her students from P.E. five minutes later, K.M. was fine and the class went to lunch. The next day, at the end of school, Principal Bailey handed Respondent a letter advising her that she was under investigation for leaving a child unattended. 9 This hallway was covered by the same faulty security cameras previously mentioned. At her disciplinary meeting, Respondent told Bailey that she did not leave K.M. in the classroom, and that she was at a meeting with the guidance counselor and a parent at the time. To support her defense, Respondent asked Bailey for the school videos which would show her in different hallways, entering the counselor’s office, and speaking with and walking the mother to the front door when her students went to P.E. Leger later asked her first lawyer on two separate occasions to obtain the relevant videos from the Broward County School District through a Freedom of Information Act request. Resp. Exs. 12a and 12b. She wanted the security videos to be subpoenaed for this case.10 K.M. remained in Respondent’s class for the balance of the year and Respondent had a good year with her. Leger never spoke to K.M. or her mother about the incident. Shirelle M. Shirelle M. is the mother of K.M. She recalled Miller calling and speaking to her and K.M. on the speaker phone. She heard K.M. tell Miller that it was Bynes that had left her in the classroom. She heard K.M.’s entire conversation with Miller. The affidavit that K.M. signed was an accurate recitation of the phone conversation she heard between Miller and her daughter in the car. She also signed her own affidavit that accurately set forth her conversation with Miller. Resp. Ex. 8. She knew that she could make any changes to her affidavit before signing it. 10 The undersigned took administrative notice of the DOAH file, which included Respondent’s subpoena to the Broward County School District seeking the videos, the District’s response, and Respondent’s Motion to Compel seeking access to the videos. Shirelle M. was there when K.M. signed her affidavit, and read it with her beforehand. She testified that no person forced her daughter to sign the affidavit. She explained the long period of time that elapsed between the time that she got the affidavit and the time that she signed. The delay was due to her work schedule, which involved four or five jobs, since the COVID-19 pandemic. She testified that she had no hesitation executing her affidavit, and did so freely and voluntarily, since it was accurate and correct. Concerning the day of the classroom incident, she saw her daughter before speaking with the Principal when she picked K.M. up from aftercare. She did not get much detail from the Principal, who said that the matter was still under investigation. The Principal never told her that it was Respondent who left K.M. in the room. She never overheard K.M. tell anyone that Respondent had left her in the classroom. K.M. Before beginning her testimony, eight-year-old K.M. was questioned by the undersigned. She was polite, alert, and calm. She understood the oath and the importance of telling the truth. She remembered when she lived in Florida. She also recalled Respondent as her kindergarten teacher and the incident of being left in the classroom. K.M. testified that it was Bynes who left her in the classroom when Respondent was at a meeting. 11 She recalled that when Bynes arrived at the classroom, Respondent then left for a meeting. 11 The Transcript mistakenly phonetically wrote Barnes. It should have been Bynes. K.M. stayed behind when the rest of the class went to P.E. She did so because Respondent had told her earlier that morning to stay behind because of minor discipline issues with her. More specifically, as the class left to go to P.E., K.M. told Bynes that she was supposed to remain in the classroom, and Bynes said “okay” and took the remainder of the class to P.E. K.M. remained in the classroom while the class was at P.E., until Respondent returned from her meeting. When asked by Leger why she was there alone, K.M. reminded Respondent that she had previously told her to stay in the class. K.M. executed an affidavit that she read and that her mother read to her. It accurately reflected what happened. Resp. Ex. 13b. K.M. recalled speaking to a man on the phone (Investigator Miller), and told him the same thing as what she testified to in court. K.M. unequivocally stated twice during the hearing that she never told anyone that Respondent, Leger, had left her in the classroom. Nobody told K.M. what to say in the hearing, and she remembered on her own that to which she testified. K.M. liked Respondent and stated that she was “a pretty good teacher.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint and the charges contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to terminate a teacher’s employment for just cause based upon the charge that he committed misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Sapp is a teacher in the Broward County Public School System. At the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, Sapp was serving as a teacher, track coach, and Athletic Director at Silver Lakes Middle School (“School”). As Athletic Director, Sapp was entrusted with a “master” key that allowed him access to most buildings and offices in the School, a privilege not available to all teachers. Most of the School’s teachers, including Sapp, were assigned a laptop computer. A teacher’s laptop was either an IBM-compatible Dell or an Apple Macintosh. The School did not have on hand a surfeit of laptops but rather just enough for most teachers to have one. Sapp’s was an Apple Macintosh. The School’s technology specialist was Julian Kuilan, who had started work in that capacity in January 2001. Among other things, Mr. Kuilan was responsible for taking care of the computers that were assigned to the teachers. On Thursday, February 22, 2001, Mr. Kuilan was in possession of a Dell laptop computer that he intended to assign to a teacher the next day. When he left work that afternoon, Mr. Kuilan stored the Dell laptop under his desk,1 where it was concealed from casual visitors, and locked the door to his office, which was situated in the School’s media center. The media center, too, was locked for the night. At around 8:00 p.m. that evening, Sapp returned to the School after a track meet. He remained on campus until all of the adults and students who were with him had left the vicinity. Then, at around 8:30 p.m., when Sapp knew that he was alone except for the custodial crew, Sapp used his master key to enter, first, the media center and, next, Mr. Kuilan’s locked office. Once he was in Mr. Kuilan’s office, Sapp located the computers hidden under the desk and picked up a Dell laptop. Sapp left Mr. Kuilan’s office with the computer and departed the media center through the back door (not the front door through which he had entered). He took the laptop to his own classroom and stashed it there. Sapp then left to go home. In the parking lot, he bumped into the School’s security specialist, Mr. Stevens, who was washing a bus.2 Sapp did not mention the computer to the Mr. Stevens. When Mr. Kuilan arrived for work the next morning, Friday, February 23, 2001, he quickly discovered that one of the laptops which had been placed under his desk the previous afternoon was gone. He promptly notified the administration of the loss. The School’s principal, Mr. Traeger, immediately initiated an investigation to determine the whereabouts of the missing computer. The police were called, as was the School’s Special Investigative Unit (“SIU”). The SIU assigned an investigator named Kathleen Andersen to the case. Meanwhile, that Friday morning, as others were trying to find out what had happened to the laptop, Sapp returned to the media center to borrow a VCR. Sapp did not mention to anyone in the media center, including Mr. Kuilan, that he had entered Mr. Kuilan’s locked office the night before and removed a computer——which, as only Sapp knew, was presently located in Sapp’s classroom. Later that day, around 3:00 p.m., Mr. Traeger convened a meeting in his office to interview persons, such as the night custodial staff, who had access to the media center and might have been on campus when the computer was taken. Sapp was summoned to this meeting because he held a master key and had been at the School after hours due to the track meet. When Sapp arrived at the principal’s office, Mr. Traeger told him that a computer was missing and inquired whether Sapp had seen anyone enter the media center on Thursday night.3 Sapp answered that he had not and was excused.4 When he left work that Friday, Sapp did not take the laptop computer home with him for the weekend of February 24-25, 2001. The computer remained in his classroom. That same weekend, Ms. Andersen (the SIU investigator) obtained data from the motion detectors in the media center. This information enabled the investigator to home in on the likely time frame during which the computer had been taken and to pinpoint the areas in which the culprit had been present. Knowing these facts would facilitate the review of the surveillance videotapes that were the product of the many security cameras located around the School’s campus——cameras that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. On Monday, February 26, 2001, Ms. Andersen arranged to watch the surveillance videotapes the next day.5 For his part, Sapp came to work as usual that Monday——and said nothing to anyone about the laptop he had taken from Mr. Kuilan’s office. When he left in the evening, Sapp took the laptop home and placed it in his attic. On Tuesday morning, February 27, 2001, Ms. Andersen reviewed the surveillance videos. When she did, she discovered that the cameras had captured the image of the man who had taken the computer——and it was someone she knew. Right away, Ms. Andersen recognized Sapp as being the person shown in the film exiting the media center with a laptop computer. Ms. Andersen informed Mr. Traeger, who then personally viewed the tapes. He, too, identified Sapp without difficulty. They decided that Sapp needed to be questioned right away. Sapp was attending an athletics-related off-campus meeting that morning when he received a telephone call from Mr. Traeger, who instructed Sapp to return to the School immediately. Sapp complied, and he arrived in the principal’s office around noon, where he met Mr. Traeger and Ms. Andersen. Sapp was asked whether he could provide any additional information concerning his activities on the night of February 22, 2001, that might shed light on the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the laptop. Sapp became upset and asked that Ms. Andersen leave the room so that he could speak privately with Mr. Traeger. She left. Alone with Mr. Traeger, Sapp finally admitted that he had entered the media center the last Thursday night, although he still did not reveal that he had taken the computer. The principal asked Sapp if he was confident enough about these facts to write a statement. Sapp said that he was and wrote the following in longhand:6 When coming back for the track meet on Thursday 22nd of Feb. I open the boys locker room for the boys to dress from the track meet. After boys dress me and the girl track coach went to the back and check and see if all the kids was gone. We entered the school east side of the school. Going up the hallway. Then we stop by the teacher lounge. Then went in the west hallway. I stop by the media center on the west side for a min. The girl track coach kept walking. So I caught up with her to walk her to her classroom. We stay in the classroom for about five min then she walk out the west side to her car. We talk for a min or so. Then she left. I walk back up the hallway. I went into the teachers’ lounge. Then I came out enter the media center. I came out the back of the media center. I went into the east hallway into the locker room to pick up my books. Then I went to the classroom and check and see how things was left after the sub. Then I walk out to the park lock. Mr. Stevens was in the park lock. I spoke to him. Then his son drove up. Mr. Stevens told me that he lock his keys in the car and that why his son came back. I told him that I am going to go. I was very sleep and I would see him tomorrow. Arnie Lee Sapp 2-27-2001 Sapp’s written statement was not the whole truth and, indeed, was misleading in its omission of the material fact that Sapp had taken the computer out of Mr. Kuilan’s office. At some point in the ensuing discussion, Mr. Traeger confronted Sapp with the evidence of the videotapes and offered to let him resign if he would confess and return the computer. Shortly thereafter, Sapp confessed to Mr. Traeger (but he did not resign). After Sapp had admitted taking the computer, Mr. Traeger called Ms. Andersen back into the room. By this time, Sapp was visibly distraught and crying. He continued to make incriminating statements, such as “I’ve done something really stupid” and “I’ve let a lot of people down.” Sapp also alarmed the others present by talking about “end[ing] it all on Friday”——which they interpreted as a possible threat to commit suicide. Eventually, Sapp calmed down and assured Mr. Traeger and Ms. Andersen that he was not going to hurt himself. Notably, however, despite being asked, Sapp did not disclose why he had taken the computer, giving only the vague explanation that “personal issues” had forced him to do it. As the meeting ended, Sapp agreed promptly to return the computer. Ms. Andersen and another officer followed Sapp to his house, where the laptop was retrieved. Sapp’s Exculpatory Scenario Except as noted, the basic material facts in the above account were largely undisputed. Where the litigants mainly part company is over the veracity of Sapp’s present explanation for his actions. What follows is a brief summary of Sapp’s exculpatory scenario. Sapp claims that he “borrowed” the Dell laptop on February 22, 2001, so that a friend with good typing skills would be able to use it to prepare the program for a March 8, 2001, track meet while Sapp and this friend attended Sapp’s college reunion in North Carolina, where they were scheduled to be from Friday, March 2, 2001, to Sunday, March 4, 2001. According to Sapp, an IBM-compatible Dell was needed for this task because he was having trouble printing documents stored in the Apple Macintosh laptop that had been assigned to him. Sapp, in sum, maintains that he had a legitimate purpose for taking the computer. On the surface, Sapp’s story has, at best, a patina of plausibility, and a bit of probing wipes even that away. To believe Sapp would require the making of too many assumptions that are out of step with common sense and everyday experience—— assumptions that are, in the final analysis, incompatible with a reasonably likely hypothesis of innocence. To start, there is the manner in which Sapp acquired the laptop. The facts are that Sapp took the property at night when the campus was nearly empty; that he used a master key to open locked doors and enter another employee’s office; and that he removed the computer from a location in that office which can fairly be called a hiding place. To explain this suspicious conduct, Sapp asserts that the School’s equipment checkout policy was not always strictly followed and that he had been permitted, in the past, to borrow property without observing the formal sign-out procedures. Assuming this is true, however, there is no credible evidence that the School ever tolerated conduct similar to Sapp’s. Moreover, common sense instructs that, barring an emergency,7 a teacher having a legitimate reason to use school district property will not simply take the property by stealth but will ask, at least informally, for permission. It is, therefore, not likely that Sapp would have taken the computer as he did if his intentions were good. Next is the fact that, time and again, Sapp never mentioned to anyone that he had taken the computer, when common sense dictates that an innocent person would have done so. It is, of course, highly probable that Sapp, as a reasonable person, knew that the disappearance of a laptop computer from Mr. Kuilan’s locked office likely would cause a stir——which is why, if Sapp truly had taken the computer for the reasons he now claims, Sapp almost certainly would have told someone (probably Mr. Kuilan) at the very first opportunity on Friday, February 23, 2001. Sapp’s continued silence is inconsistent with innocence. Making matters worse for Sapp is that he remained silent even when asked by the principal on the afternoon of Friday, February 23, 2001, about suspicious activity in the media center the night before. Sapp now concedes that it was a “mistake” not to tell the Mr. Traeger the supposedly exculpatory truth that day, and clearly it was——but it was more than that. If Sapp were innocent as he now claims, common sense teaches that he would have revealed everything to Mr. Traeger then and there. Sapp’s silence at this point is not only inconsistent with innocence but also circumstantial evidence of guilt; the reasonable inference is that he was covering up a known wrong. By now, Sapp’s story is so discredited that to note that on February 26, 2001, Sapp secreted the computer in his attic seems gratuitous, but that is the incriminating fact. Of greater significance, however, is that on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, during the second meeting with Mr. Traeger concerning the missing laptop, Sapp again failed to tell the whole truth and signed a written statement for Mr. Traeger that omitted the material fact that he had taken the computer. It is nearly impossible to imagine that Sapp, if innocent, would have continued actively to conceal this fact; common sense suggests that an innocent person would have spoken up long before it became necessary for Mr. Traeger to produce the inculpatory surveillance videos. At bottom, to fit Sapp’s story to the undisputed objective facts concerning his conduct demands belief in an improbable set of circumstances that ultimately defies belief. The simpler explanation for Sapp’s conduct, in contrast, is credible and probable: Sapp stole the computer and then attempted to cover up the misdeed until, when confronted with the videotapes, he was compelled to confess. Ultimate Factual Determinations Sapp’s taking of the laptop computer on February 22, 2001, was, if not theft as defined in the criminal law, at least dishonest and hence in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings). In addition, by using the master key with which he had been entrusted as a perquisite of his position as Athletic Director to gain unauthorized access Mr. Kuilan’s office, Sapp violated Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall not use institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage). Sapp committed separate violations of Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, when he knowingly concealed material information from his principal on February 23, 2001, and again on February 27, 2001. Sapp violated Rule 6B-1.006(5)(h), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall not submit fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities), when, on February 27, 2001, he tendered a signed, written statement to Mr. Traeger that omitted material facts and was, as a result, false and misleading. Sapp’s misconduct, which violated several principles of professional conduct as noted above, also violated Rule 6B- 1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code (employee shall strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct). This ethics code violation, it should be mentioned, is secondary to the previously described misdeeds, inasmuch as acts of dishonesty and fraud necessarily demonstrate a failure to sustain the “highest degree of ethical conduct.” Sapp’s violations of the ethics code and the principles of professional conduct were serious and caused his effectiveness in the school system to be impaired. Contrary to Sapp’s argument, the evidence amply supports this finding. Indeed, Sapp’s own testimony, in which he admitted having breached the confidence and trust that had been reposited in him as a teacher and Athletic Director, was powerful proof that, after the incident, he could no longer be as effective as he previously had been. Further, as a teacher and coach, Sapp was required to be a role model for his students. To be effective in this position of trust and confidence, he needed to maintain a high degree of trustworthiness, honesty, judgment, and discretion. Yet, as Sapp admitted at hearing, if a student athlete had engaged in conduct similar to his own, that student would be dismissed from the athletic program and probably expelled from school. Obviously, having committed acts that would subject a student to severe repercussions, Sapp’s effectiveness as a role model has been seriously compromised——perhaps (and hopefully) not irreparably, but grievously nonetheless. Based on the above findings, it is determined that Sapp is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order ratifying Sapp’s suspension without pay effective September 11, 2001, and discharging him from further employment in the Broward County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 24th day of September, 2002.
The Issue Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Respondent?s educator?s certificate, and if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education, is charged with the duty to investigate and take disciplinary action against individuals who hold a Florida educator's certificate and are alleged to have violated section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and the Department?s rules establishing standards of teacher conduct. Respondent holds an educator?s certificate, No. 1085138, issued by the Florida Department of Education. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a music teacher at Ed White High School in Duval County, Florida. Respondent graduated from Florida A & M University in the Spring of 2008 with a bachelor?s degree in music education. Respondent was first employed by the Duval County School Board in February, 2008, immediately before his graduation from Florida A & M, as a substitute teacher at Ed White High School. He taught as a full-time music teacher during the 2008-2009 school year, until his resignation on April 6, 2009. Respondent currently holds a teacher certification from the state of Georgia, and teaches music at Terrell High School in Atlanta, Georgia, a position that he has held for two years. Mr. Jackson had a good reputation as a teacher. There was no allegation of any prior disciplinary history involving Respondent. One of the resources provided to Respondent as a teacher at Ed White High School was a school-issued laptop computer. That computer was Respondent?s only school-issued computer, as the school did not provide him with a desktop computer. There was no restriction against teachers taking school-issued laptops home for work-related purposes. Respondent occasionally took his school-issued laptop home with him. He also stored music files on his school-issued laptop after his personal laptop was stolen from the school. Respondent had an account with the school, which included access to the internet. In order to have that account, Respondent was provided with a copy of the Duval County Public Schools Staff Network and Internet Acceptable Use and Security Policy and Guidelines (AUP). Among the guidelines were the following: All Network Usage is Subject to Monitoring The Internet and other networks are public places. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The district reserves the right to monitor all traffic on the network and review all files stored on or transmitted through its computer system. * * * Appropriateness of Materials Access to the internet provides opportunities for staff and students to explore thousands of resources outside of the walls of their school or office. The district acknowledges that fact that inappropriate materials exist and will do everything it can do to actively avoid them, including the use of filtering software. The district has implemented technology protection measures that filter internet access to block visual displays that are obscene, pornographic, or harmful to minors, but this technology is not 100% effective. No software can filter out all of the materials that are unacceptable for academic purposes and it should be clearly understood by all staff and all students and their parents/guardians that intentional access to such material, in any form, is strictly forbidden. The network is designed to achieve and support the district?s business and instructional goals and any information that does not support the goals is to be avoided. The district wants staff and students to use this valuable tool, but at the same time cannot condone the use of inappropriate information or unauthorized access. If a staff or student unintentionally accesses such information while doing legitimate research, he/she should contact the teacher or the person responsible for technology at his/her site for appropriate action. It is the responsibility of all users, staff, and students that at all times while in the Duval County Public Schools, the computers, the network, and the internet are being used primarily for educational or district business purposes. * * * Network Security Passwords The person in whose name a network account is issued is responsible at all times for its proper use Passwords must never be shared. To share a user ID or password exposes the authorized user to responsibility for actions the other party takes with the password and ID * * * Appropriate Behavior Staff members are responsible for appropriate behavior on the district?s computers, business systems, network, and the internet and should adhere to all relevant federal, state, and local laws; district policies, guidelines, standards, procedures and controls; and the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Users who disregard the federal, state, and local laws and codes, district policies, guidelines, standards, procedures and controls may have their privileges suspended, revoked, and disciplinary action taken against them, including termination. Users granted access to the network through the district?s computer systems assume personal responsibility and liability, both civil and criminal, for uses of the network not authorized by this policy and the district?s guidelines. Employees should only use the information from business systems or the network in the performance of their duties/responsibilities with the school system unless that is a direct responsibility of the employee. The district does not sanction any use of its computers or the internet that is not authorized by or conducted strictly in compliance with this policy and the district?s guidelines, standards, procedures, and controls. Users who disregard this policy and the district?s guidelines, standards, procedures and controls may have his/her privileges suspended or revoked and disciplinary action taken against them. Users granted access to the network through the district?s computers assume personal responsibility and liability, both civil and criminal, for uses of the network not authorized by this policy and the district?s guidelines, standards, procedures and controls. The district retains the right to remove from its information systems any material it views as offensive or potentially illegal. The district declares unethical and unacceptable behavior as just cause for disciplinary action, the revocation of network access privileges, termination and/or the initiation of legal action for any activity through which an individual: uses the district?s computers and/or network for illegal, inappropriate, or obscene purposes, or in support of such activities * * * b. Obscene activities shall be defined as a violation of generally accepted social standards for use of a publically owned and operated communication vehicle Respondent acknowledged receipt of the AUP by electronic signature. Respondent?s laptop computer was password-protected, meaning that no one other than Respondent could access the school network or any computer files without having his password. As a teacher, Respondent had access to certain websites that were blocked to students, most notably YouTube. Respondent provided his password to three or four trusted students to complete online classwork, or to view videos of other bands on YouTube in preparation for their end-of-year, spring concert. Although sharing password information with students is prohibited by the AUP, and student access to the internet is conditioned upon the Duval County Public School employee obtaining signed parental consent, those potential violations were not pled in this case. In the spring semester of 2009, James Culbert, as part of his weekly review of the school district?s internet content filter system, determined that Respondent was accessing, or attempting to access, inappropriate internet sites through his school account, or was using search terms that the school district had determined to be inappropriate for use on the school district system. Mr. Culbert reviewed the internet access logs, and prepared a full internet-use report for Respondent?s account for the period from March 2, 2009 to April 6, 2009. The report consisted of 530 pages of internet history, and included every internet search performed using Respondent?s account during that period. Those searches included educational and other non- restricted sites, and the inappropriate sites that form the basis of the Administrative Complaint. The internet-use records reflected access or attempted access to inappropriate, pornographic materials through Respondent?s account on five occasions from March 12, 2009 to March 31, 2009. Contemporaneously with Mr. Culbert?s system analysis, Mr. McCallum accessed Respondent?s computer, apparently by remote means, and determined that it contained downloaded video files that were pornographic in nature. On April 6, 2009, Mr. Culbert and Mr. McCallum met with Ed White High School Principal Jim Clark to advise him of the results of the investigation. Principal Clark and Mr. Culbert then went to the band room at approximately 11:20 a.m., during Respondent?s planning period, and asked Respondent to accompany them to the principal?s office. The classroom visit was intentionally discreet so as not to call attention to the situation. Respondent was joined in the principal?s office by Principal Clark, Mr. Culbert, and Mr. McCallum. The school officials proceeded to provide Respondent with the substance of the allegations against him. During the investigative interview Respondent acted in a cooperative and gentlemanly manner. When confronted with the conduct that gave rise to the allegations in this proceeding, Respondent voluntarily resigned his position with the Duval County School Board. Respondent knew that the use of his school-issued laptop computer to access pornography was prohibited by the AUP, having signed an acknowledgement that he had received, read, and understood the policy. In addition, each time a teacher logs onto a school-issued computer, a banner page appears warning the teacher against inappropriate use, instructing that all use may be “monitored, intercepted, recorded, read, copied, or captured,” and advising that school personnel have no expectation of privacy as to any use of the system. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent tried to disable the District?s computer and internet protection, downloaded any program to circumvent the District?s filtering software, or took any steps to disguise his actions. Internet Searches The only direct evidence of Respondent accessing or attempting to access inappropriate websites was for the following dates and times: March 12, 2009 at 7:33 a.m. - “google.com” and “youtube.com.” March 17, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. - “live.com.” March 18, 2009 from 11:37 to 11:46 a.m. and 11:52 to 11:53 a.m. - “live.com,” “msn.com,” and “google.com.” March 23, 2009 at 10:46 to 10:49 a.m. - “google.com” and “youtube.com.” March 31, 2009 from 6:37 to 6:43 p.m. - “excusivepussy.com,” “blackcrush.com,” “live.com,” and “RUDE.com.” There is nothing inherently improper about accessing Google, YouTube, or msn.com. Rather, it is the search terms used that form the basis for the complaint. Those search terms, though not inherently graphic, were sufficient to support a finding of intent to access inappropriate content. As part of his forensic investigation, Mr. Culbert retrieved JPEG files from the temporary internet files on Respondent?s computer. The files consisted of photographic images of pornographic activity, and were created between 6:37 to 6:43 p.m. on March 31, 2009. Thus, I find the evidence to be clear and convincing that Respondent accessed pornographic materials on his school-issued laptop computer during that period. March 30 through April 3, 2009 was spring break. The “Material Allegations” alleged in the Administrative Complaint indicate that Respondent?s access of the inappropriate materials during school hours was material, and constitute the allegations of misconduct that Respondent must answer to. Since the access on March 31, 2009, occurred over spring break and beyond regular school hours, the access on that date does not form the basis for a violation. The fact that inappropriate images were in temporary internet files is not evidence that Respondent downloaded any images, or had the intent to store those images on his computer. It is common knowledge that computers keep track of information that passes through them without any action on the part of the user. The evidence shows that to be the case here. Thus, although Respondent accessed the images on March 31, 2009, outside of school hours, there is no evidence that he intended to maintain such images in a manner that could be reasonably accessed by students. During the six-minute period on March 31, 2009 in which inappropriate websites were accessed or had attempted access, the internet use report shows hits on “scutheti.com,” which is a malicious code/virus. The malicious code/virus first manifested itself at 6:37 p.m., contemporaneously with the first hit on the “RUDE.com” website, which was likely the infecting vehicle. Based on the uniform sequence of access to two of the more graphically-named websites following connection to “scutheti.com,” it is clear that the sites were interacting with each other, and that “scutheti.com” was trying to send tracking information to those sites. The only plausible way that those sites could have been accessed with the depicted frequency and regularity during that six-minute period was through the actions of a malicious application, rather than by action of Respondent. Thus, I find that Respondent did not access or attempt to access those graphically-named websites listed on the first three pages of the internet-use report. The evidence of record contains no temporary internet files or downloaded images of pornographic materials for the March 12, March 17, March 18, or March 23, 2009, instances of access or attempted access to inappropriate materials. Each of those dates was a school day as shown on the 2008-2009 District Calendar. Given the lack of stored images in the temporary internet files for those dates, it is more reasonable than not that the school district?s internet filter worked as designed, and prevented access to those sites. That finding is bolstered by the fact that it was the blocks of pornographic type websites that brought this matter to the attention of the school district. Mr. Culbert testified that the website screen shots that he reviewed to determine the nature of the sites identified from the internet filter report were not retrieved from Respondent?s computer, but were rather obtained during his investigative foray to those sites. Those screen shots do not constitute clear and convincing evidence that Respondent successfully accessed any inappropriate websites on March 12, 2009; March 17, 2009; March 18, 2009, and March 23, 2009. There is no direct evidence that the access or attempted access to inappropriate websites on March 12, 2009; March 17, 2009; March 18, 2009, and March 23, 2009 occurred while students were in the classroom. Nonetheless, Respondent suggested that the access to inappropriate sites could have been the result of students surfing the internet on his laptop computer while unattended. It is plausible that students to whom Respondent provided his ID and password could have accessed inappropriate content while using his computer. However, there is neither an allegation nor proof of that having occurred. Regardless, the AUP made it clear that Respondent bore responsibility for unacceptable use in the event he chose to share information, a policy that is reasonable and appropriate. Video Files During his inspection of Respondent?s school-issued laptop computer, Mr. Culbert discovered five video files stored on the computer?s hard drive that depicted graphic sexual conduct between adults. The files range from 18 to 34 minutes in length. The evidence indicates that the files were downloaded on March 31, 2009 from 9:45 to 9:46 p.m., and on April 1, 2009 from 3:20 to 3:26 p.m. At some time prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Respondent and other teachers at Ed White High School, were asked to clear their computers of personal files to allow for system work. Respondent had thousands of mp3 music files on his school-issued computer. Use of the computer for that purpose was not identified as being contrary to the school?s acceptable-use policy. In order to clear his computer, Respondent loaded his mp3 files onto a series of personal “jump drives.” After being cleared to do so, Respondent reloaded his files from the jump drives back onto his school-issued laptop computer hard drive. Respondent testified that he did not download any video files to the computer from the internet, and had no recollection of having intentionally loaded such files from any other source. He could only conclude that the video files were stored on one or more of the jump drives, and were downloaded with the mp3 files without the specific intent to do so. His testimony on that issue is both plausible and credible. Thus, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the download of the video files was inadvertent and unintentional. It does appear that Respondent did, while still on spring break, access two of the video files on April 2, 2009, at 9:33 a.m. Access on that day was not during school hours. However, such access reveals that Respondent became cognizant of their presence on the laptop computer, and should have led him to delete them from the school-issued computer. The access log further indicates one of the videos was accessed at 9:43 a.m. on April 6, 2009, a school day. However, prior to Mr. McCallum and Mr. Culbert?s 11:00 a.m. meeting with the principal on April 6, 2009, and prior to their taking physical control of the computer, Respondent?s internet attempts were checked and “[i]n addition, a further check revealed that Jackson had downloaded pornographic videos onto his district assigned laptop.” Thus, it appears that remote access to Respondent?s computer was obtained by the investigators prior to their 11:00 a.m. meeting. After that “further check,” Mr. McCallum drove to Mr. Culbert?s office, picked him up, and they drove together to Ed White High School. Given the sequence and timing of events, it is more likely than not that the April 6, 2009, video access was made as part of the investigation. In any event, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent accessed the video file at 9:43 a.m. on April 6, 2009. Respondent denied ever having accessed or played the videos during school hours as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The greater weight of the evidence supports his denial. DVD disc When the school officials took possession of Respondent?s school-issued laptop on the morning of April 6, 2009, they discovered a DVD in the computer?s DVD drive. The DVD consisted of videos of adults engaged in a variety of sexual acts. The DVD was pornographic in nature. The record is devoid of evidence as to when the DVD was inserted into the computer drive. Although Respondent disclaimed knowledge of how the DVD made it into the computer drive, the evidence is clear and convincing that it was placed into the computer drive while the computer was in Respondent?s control. Respondent is responsible for his school-issued laptop computer, and its contents are fairly attributable to him. There is no evidence that the DVD was ever accessed or played during school hours, or that it was ever viewed by or shared with any student, teacher, or staff member of Ed White High School. The materials that were found on Respondent?s computer, either as internet images, video files, or the DVD, all depicted sexual activity between consenting adults. None of them depicted sexual activity involving minors. There is no evidence that the materials were “obscene,” though they are clearly pornographic. In that regard, Ms. Young was twice asked her opinion as to whether the materials were “obscene or pornographic,” and her response on both occasions was that they were pornographic. There is no evidence that the materials were illegal or that they involved criminal activity. While the materials are without question offensive to some, accessing and watching images of adults engaged in sexual activity, in privacy, does not involve “the idea of inherent baseness or depravity in the private social relations or duties owed to man or by man to society.” Neither the conduct alleged, nor the investigation or interview of Respondent was known to anyone outside of the principal and the two school board employees involved in the investigation. There was no evidence that any student, parent, or other teacher had any knowledge of Respondent?s access or attempted access of inappropriate material from his school- issued laptop. His conduct was not, in any sense of the term, “notorious.” The fact that Respondent?s school-issued laptop computer was used to access, store, or hold pornographic images in various forms and on various media did not have any adverse affect on Respondent?s effectiveness as a teacher at Ed White High School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint; finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 4 and 5 of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, also guilty of the non-separate violation alleged in Count 3 of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of 90 days; imposing a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case; requiring that Respondent take and pass a three-hour, college-level course in ethics during the probationary period; and imposing a fine of $250 to be paid by the end of the probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2011.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent's employment with the Broward County School Board, for five days for misconduct in office and immorality, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed as a behavioral specialist teacher at the Sunset School ("Sunset"), a public school in Broward County. Sunset is an educational center servicing emotionally and behaviorally disabled students ranging in ages from 5 to 22, kindergarten through twelfth grades. The program at Sunset is unique in its behavior management system and mental health component which include academic, vocational, therapeutic, and behavioral interventions. On December 5, 2011, Respondent notified Principal Cottrell that she intended to seek a restraining order against Sunset student, A.W. In the dialogue that followed, Principal Cottrell requested that, when completed, Respondent provide him a copy of the court documents.1/ On that same date, Respondent presented to the Clerk of the Court for the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, with the intention of filing a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence ("Petition") against A.W. Respondent, who was not represented by counsel, obtained the blank Petition from a clerk, and filled in the required information by hand. Upon completion, Respondent presented the Petition back to the clerk. The clerk then inquired as to whether Respondent had any additional documentation that she wished to attach to the Petition. It is undisputed that Respondent then attached four documents to the Petition. Specifically, Respondent attached 1) a Sunset School Code Report dated December 5, 2011, detailing a behavioral issue concerning A.W.; 2) a Sunset School Incident report dated December 5, 2011, again detailing a behavioral issue concerning A.W.; 3) a Sunset School Incident report dated November 1, 2011, documenting a behavioral issue concerning A.W.; and 4) a Student Accident/Illness Form dated November 1, 2011, documenting a physical confrontation by and between A.W. and Respondent. The Circuit Court issued a temporary injunction against A.W. precluding A.W. from knowingly coming within 100 feet of Respondent's vehicle and ordering the parties to refrain from contact while at Sunset. The parties were notified to appear and testify at a hearing regarding the matter on December 14, 2011. Respondent, as requested, provided Principal Cottrell with a copy of the Petition; however, the attachments were not included in the copied material. After being served with the temporary injunction, A.W.'s mother notified Principal Cottrell and complained, inter alia, that A.W.'s records had been attached to the same. In response to the parent complaint, on or about December 8, 2011, Principal Cottrell submitted a personnel investigation request to the School Board of Broward County Office of Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit ("SIU"). The investigation request alleged that Respondent had committed Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") and Code of Ethics violations. On or about December 14, 2011, the Board filed a Notice of Special Appearance and Motion to Seal Confidential Records in the underlying case. The judge granted the unopposed motion, concluding the records were confidential pursuant to section 1002.221(2)(a), Florida Statutes and "FERPA regulations," and ordered the records sealed. The previously requested SIU investigation was initiated on or about January 9, 2012. Upon completion, the matter was referred to the Professional Standards Committee ("PSC"). The PSC found probable cause that Respondent had committed misconduct in violating Board Policy 5100.1, and recommended she serve a suspension. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Schools reviewed the recommendation of the PSC, concurred, and recommended a five-day suspension. Finally, the Broward County School Board approved the recommended suspension. The documents Respondent attached to the Petition were A.W.'s educational records. Said records included personally identifiable information of A.W. obtained in the course of professional service. The parties stipulate that Respondent did not have the authorization or consent of A.W., A.W.'s parents, or Sunset to attach A.W.'s educational records to the Petition. Prior to the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent attended a preplanning conference wherein the teaching staff was advised of current information related to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), FERPA, federal and state law, and Board policies. Respondent also acknowledged receipt of the 2011-2012 Staff Handbook and the Code of Ethics. Moreover, Respondent signed an Employee Confidentiality Agreement regarding HIPPA. Additionally, the Board policy concerning student record confidentiality is published, maintained, and available to the teaching staff. Respondent conceded, as she must, that she was aware of the obligations as a behavioral specialist at Sunset to maintain the confidentiality of student educational and health records. Notwithstanding, Respondent credibly testified that, at the time, she believed the confidentiality requirements of said records would be maintained in the court proceeding. Principal Cottrell opined that Respondent's conduct impaired her effectiveness. His testimony on this point is set forth in full, as follows: Q. Does the fact that these records were disclosed by Ms. Finnk impair her effectiveness to you – her effectiveness as a teacher to you within the system? A. Within her capacity at Sunset School or in any capacity at Sunset School when I am the administrator responsible, absolutely. I need to know that each and every team member at Sunset, each and every employee is responsible and knowledgeable on confidentiality and follows it without question. The undersigned finds that the above-quoted testimony is insufficient to support a finding that Respondent's conduct impaired her effectiveness in the school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 18th day of June, 2013.
