The Issue As to DOAH Case No. 12-2859TTS, whether Rhea Cohen (Respondent), a classroom teacher, committed the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Robert Runcie, as Superintendent of the Broward County Schools (Superintendent) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s employment. As to DOAH Case No. 13-0704PL, whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent’s teacher’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida; and Robert Runcie was Superintendent of Schools. At all times material hereto, the Commissioner has been the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida; and Pam Stewart was the Commissioner. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 2002 and holds a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an ESE classroom teacher at Crystal Lake. During the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent was employed as an ESE classroom teacher at Atlantic West Elementary School teaching students on the autism spectrum. During that school year, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) reprimanded Respondent for sleeping in class while students were present and for using restraints inappropriately to control or manage autistic and exceptional student education students. The EPC imposed an administrative fine against her in the amount of $500.00. Thereafter, Respondent transferred to Crystal Lake. Respondent taught ESE students at Crystal Lake for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. The events at issue in this proceeding occurred during either the 2010-2011 school year or the 2011-2012 school year. Exact dates were available for some of the events, but unavailable for other events. Respondent’s classroom at Crystal Lake for those two school years was divided into two halves, separated by tables and rolling chalkboards that did not form a solid wall. For the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent taught her class of ESE students on one side of the divided classroom and a Ms. Knighton taught on the other side. For the 2011-2012 school year Respondent shared the classroom with Mr. Montalbano. On one side of the classroom was Respondent’s class, consisting of 11 ESE students. On the other side of the room was Mr. Montalbano’s class, consisting of seven ESE students. Mr. Montalbano’s class was smaller because his class functioned at a lower level than Respondent’s class. On October 4, 2011, student J., a non-verbal, wheel chair-bound boy, and student D., a boy with Down’s syndrome, were sitting next to each other in Respondent’s classroom. Student D. did something to irritate student J. Student J. balled up his fist as if to strike student D. Respondent, in front of the entire class, Lisa Phillips (an ESE paraprofessional), and Ms. Sorren, made the following statement: “So is the cripple [student J.] going to beat up the retard [student D.]”./4 Other students in the classroom laughed at student J. and student D. Student J.’s wheelchair is motorized. After making the statement quoted above, Respondent attempted to move student J. into a corner. When student J. moved the wheelchair away from the corner, Respondent unplugged the wheelchair’s battery and made the statement: “Now who has the power. I am in control, not you.” The other students laughed at student J. Respondent then moved student J. to the corner./5 On October 11, 2011, Respondent sent student J. to Mr. Montalbano’s classroom and commented that “he’s too much of a bother.” One day at dismissal, student J. asked Respondent three or four times to be taken to the bathroom. Respondent did not respond to student J. The bus arrived, but the driver refused to accept student J. because of his request to go to the toilet. Mr. Montalbano, who overheard student J.’s requests to Respondent, took over the responsibility for student J. Respondent became frustrated while helping student J. with the computer after student J. got the wires to the headphones tangled. Respondent ripped the headphones out of the back of the computer leaving the male connection in the female end of the computer. In a private discussion with Mr. Montalbano, Respondent referred to student D. as being a “moron.” Respondent sent her 11 students to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom, which housed ten computers. There was a disturbance because one student did not have a computer. Respondent came to Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom and told student D. to give up his computer. Student D.’s first language is Bulgarian. When student D. muttered in protest, Respondent yelled at him to express himself in English. When student D. left the computer, his place was quickly taken by another student. Student D. began to cry. Respondent walked back to her side of the classroom, leaving student D. crying in Mr. Montalbano’s side of the classroom. On October 11, 2011, student Mi., an 11 year-old female on the autism spectrum, was playing with a puzzle during free time when she spotted an open computer. Student Mi. left the puzzle pieces out to go to the computer. Respondent noted the puzzle on the table and yelled out, “Who left this puzzle out?” Student Mi. hid under a table in reaction to Respondent’s statement. Respondent came to the table, roughly grabbed student Mi., and pulled her out from under the table. Respondent led student Mi. to the table with the puzzle and yelled in front of the class: “I don’t know what your mother teaches you at home, but you’re a little, spoiled brat and I am not going to clean up after you.” Respondent then took student Mi.’s doll away from her and put her in time out for the remainder of the day, approximately 30 minutes. On another occasion, Respondent had the other members of the class imitate student Mi., after student Mi. had engaged in self-stimulatory behavior. The other students laughed at student Mi. In October 2011, Ms. Hudson discovered Respondent and student Mi. in Mr. Montalbano’s half of the classroom with the lights dimmed. Ms. Hudson thought student Mi. had been crying. Ms. Hudson reported the incident to her principal, but she did not question Respondent, nor did Respondent volunteer to Ms. Hudson an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in Respondent being in the darkened classroom with student Mi. At the formal hearing, Respondent explained that student Mi. had run into traffic while waiting to be transported from school. Respondent testified, credibly, that she was trying to calm down student Mi./6 Ms. Sorren testified, credibly, that during the short time she was in Respondent’s classroom (approximately three school days), she heard Respondent address the students as morons, monkeys, jungle monkeys, and animals. That testimony was consistent with the other testimony as to the language used by Respondent in her classroom. Petitioners established that Respondent repeatedly yelled at her students to “shut up,” described a student’s behavior as being “stupid,” and called at least one student a “brat.” Student Mo., a female on the autism spectrum, was new to Respondent’s class. On an unidentified date, Respondent directed student Mo. to go to timeout. After student Mo. refused to go to timeout, Respondent shoved student Mo. into the timeout area. During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent became upset with student C., a female, and ordered her out of her classroom. When student C. talked back to Respondent, Respondent threw student C.’s backpack and her shoes over the chalkboard that divided the classroom. Ms. Knighton and her class were in the part of the classroom into which Respondent threw the objects. Student C. became very upset. Respondent became upset with Ma., a male student. Ma. had a snack on his desk. Respondent knocked the snack to the floor and smashed it with her foot. Petitioners established that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Respondent’s effectiveness in the school system has been impaired.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: As to Case No. 12-2859TTS, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of Rhea Cohen’s employment and terminate that employment. As to Case No. 13-0704PL, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Rhea Cohen’s educator’s certificate for a period of five years, to be followed by probation for three years with conditions to be set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, 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 Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner has rule making authority and the authority to enter into collective bargaining agreements. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the parties were bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Teachers of Dade and the School Board. Pursuant to Section 1 of Article V, Petitioner has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss, or terminate an employee for "just cause." The term "just cause" as defined by Section 3(D) of Article XXI of the contract: . . . includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009 (Florida Administrative Code). Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, which sets forth the expected conduct of employees as follows: All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, which sets forth the expected conduct of non-instructional personnel as follows: The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms the wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. Pursuant to its rule making authority, Petitioner has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08, which prohibits violence in the workplace as follows: Nothing is more important to Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) than protecting the safety and security of its students and employees and promoting a violence-free work environment. Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on DCPS property will not be tolerated. Violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action which includes dismissal, arrest, and/or prosecution. Any person who makes substantial threats, exhibits threatening behavior, or engages in violent acts on DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. DCPS will initiate an appropriate response. This response may include, but is not limited to, suspension and/or termination of any business relationship, reassignment of job duties, suspension or termination of employment, and/or criminal prosecution of the person or persons involved. Dade County Public School employees have a right to work in a safe environment. Violence or threats of violence by or against students and employees will not be tolerated. Article VIII of the collective bargaining agreement addresses the subject of a “Safe Learning Environment.” Section 1(A) of Article VIII provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. ” At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor. The job description of a school security monitor provides the following basic objectives and responsibilities: BASIC OBJECTIVES Under general direction from the school principal, he/she performs duties to monitor student activity in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment and insures the appropriate standards of conduct are followed. JOB TASKS/RESPONSIBILITIES Visually observes student behavior during school hours, on school property. Reports serious disturbances to the school administration and resolves minor altercations. Physically patrols all school buildings, grounds, and determines reason for the presence of outsiders. Stops and questions all students not in class during class time. Monitors parking lots and student gatherings (before, during, and after school hours). Reports any safety or security problems to the administration. Performs any other duties set by the school principal or his/her designee. Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner as a temporary custodian in February 1988, and assigned to Madison Middle School (Madison). In June 1988, Respondent was employed as a school security monitor at Madison, where he remained until December 1993. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thelma Davis was the principal of Madison. In December 1993, Respondent's assigned post was near a gate in close proximity to the chorus room. J. B. and K. A. were female students at Madison during the school year 1993-94. J. B. was born March 8, 1981. In December 1993, J. B. was a twelve year-old seventh grader and a member of the chorus class taught by Edward G. Robinson. In early December 1993, Respondent made a series of inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature to J. B. when she passed his assigned post. Respondent winked at J. B. as she passed his post and blew her kisses. On one occasion, he asked if she was a virgin. On another occasion he asked her the color of her underwear. On another occasion, he made a statement as to how warm they would be under covers together. K. A. overheard Respondent say to J. B. that he and she would be warm under the covers together. J. B. became visibly upset the day Respondent asked her the color of her underwear. Mr. Robinson observed J. B. crying. J. B. thereafter told Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson reported the information to the principal. A day or two later, J. B., accompanied by K. A., again complained to Mr. Robinson about Respondent's comments and behavior. Mr. Robinson again reported the information to the principal, and an investigation was instigated. The investigation was conducted under the supervision of Captain Arnie Weatherington, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. In December 1993, Respondent was removed from the school campus and reassigned to the Region III office. The investigation was closed in May 1994 as being substantiated. In light of the substantiated findings, Ms. Davis recommended that Respondent's employment with the Petitioner be terminated. Louise Harms of the Petitioner' Office of Professional Standards conducted a Conference for the Record (CFR) with Respondent on May 3, 1994. During the CFR, Ms. Harms advised Respondent as to the findings of the investigation. Respondent remained assigned to the Region III office until February 1995, when he was involuntarily transferred to Westview Middle School. The investigation into this incident was closed by Respondent’s reassignment to Westview. There was no formal recommendation at that time by the Superintendent or by the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent’s employment be terminated for his misconduct at Madison. At Westview, Respondent had the responsibility to patrol the outdoor areas of the campus. He was given a walkie- talkie and a golf cart to assist him in performing his duties. Respondent’s instructions as to the cautious and safe use of the golf carts included the explicit instructions that children were not permitted to ride in a golf cart or to sit in a parked golf cart. During the school year 1996-97, Respondent's assigned responsibilities included patrolling the physical education area. During the 1996-97 school year, John McHale was a physical education teacher at Westview. His responsibilities included taking attendance, maintaining control of the class, and following the district curriculum. In November 1996, Mr. McHale's physical education class and three other classes that were taught by a Ms. Roque, Patricia NewKirk, and Nathaniel Stephens were held on an outdoor basketball court. On November 13, 1996, Mr. McHale was in charge of his own class and, in her absence, Ms. Roque's class. Mr. McHale's class and Ms. Roque's class were assembled on the basketball court so Mr. McHale could take roll. In addition, Mr. Stephens' class was assembled on the basketball court so Mr. Stephens could take roll. While Mr. McHale was in the process of taking roll, Respondent began joy riding in his golf cart. He rode onto the basketball court around and between the two classes under Mr. McHale's supervision. Students jumped on the golf cart. Respondent talked to students. Mr. McHale approached Respondent, told Respondent that he needed to get the classes under control, and asked Respondent to get the golf cart off the basketball court so he could do his job. In response, Respondent stated: "Take your ass back to your class. No bald-headed white man telling me what to do."2 Tempers flared, Respondent got off the golf cart, and the two men approached one another. Mr. Stephens, who is larger than either Respondent or Mr. McHale, stepped between the two men with his back facing Respondent. Respondent struck out at Mr. McHale with a closed fist, making contact with Mr. McHale’s shoulder. Mr. Stephens separated the two men and took Mr. McHale to the locker room. Respondent did not have any justification for driving the golf cart onto the basketball courts while the physical education classes were using the courts. That conduct disrupted the classes that were using the courts. Mr. McHale reported the incident to Darrel Berteaux, the school principal. Mr. Berteaux requested that the DCSP conduct an investigation. The investigation into this incident was conducted by Lieutenant Oryntha Crumity, an experienced law enforcement officer employed by the Dade County School Police. During the course of the investigation, Respondent contacted several of the student witnesses and asked each student whether the student was on his side. By making such contact, Respondent attempted to intimidate these student witnesses. Approximately a month after the incident, Mr. Berteaux received reports that Respondent had approached several student witnesses. He immediately requested that Respondent be transferred from Westview. Respondent was thereafter transferred from Westview. Proceedings to terminate his employment were initiated following a review of these matters by the Petitioner's legal staff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1998
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B- 1.006(5)(a), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Dunn holds Florida Educator's Certificate 930668, covering the area of exceptional student education, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to this case, Ms. Dunn was employed as a varying exceptionalities teacher at Seminole High School in the Pinellas County School District (School District). Deborah Joseph (Ms. Joseph), the director of School Partnerships for St. Petersburg College, hired Ms. Dunn for the Spring Semester of 2009 to supervise 12 student interns, teaching in various Pinellas County elementary schools. Ms. Joseph credibly testified that she asked Ms. Dunn what Ms. Dunn would do with her current employment as a Pinellas County teacher, if offered a job. Ms. Dunn stated that she would resign as a teacher. On January 30, 2009, during school hours, Ms. Dunn left the Seminole High School campus without permission from the school administration. When the school's assistant principal, Phillip Wirth (Mr. Wirth), questioned Ms. Dunn about her whereabouts, Ms. Dunn alternately claimed that she had been given permission by another principal to leave the campus and that she had been meeting with another teacher. Neither of Ms. Dunn's explanations was supported by the assistant principal or the teacher. Consequently, on March 9, 2009, Mr. Wirth gave Ms. Dunn a written reprimand for her conduct. The evidence clearly and convincingly shows that Ms. Dunn continued her employment as a teacher at Seminole High School while at the same time working a second job for St. Petersburg College, supervising student interns working in elementary schools. Unfortunately, Ms. Dunn's work hours at Seminole High School coincided with the student interns' work hours at the elementary schools. In order to work both jobs, the record shows that Ms. Dunn was routinely untruthful in her use of sick leave time and left the Seminole High School campus during school hours without permission. For example, the record shows that she requested sick leave on February 26, 2009; March 4, 2009; March 6, 2009; and March 17, 2009. On those very same dates, Ms. Dunn signed in to supervise interns at Pinellas Central Elementary School, Sandy Lake Elementary School, Plumb Elementary School, and McMullen Booth Elementary. Again, on one date, April 23, 2009, Ms. Dunn wrote in her leave request that "family and kids touch [of] flu" and that she was signing out for a doctor's appointment beginning at 9:30 a.m. The record shows on that same day Ms. Dunn miraculously recovered from the illness and was able to eat lunch at her husband's nearby restaurant at 11:50 a.m., and then supervise an intern at Pinellas Central Elementary School at 1:33 p.m. In addition to misusing sick leave, the record clearly showed that Ms. Dunn would leave the Seminole High School campus without permission or signing out and would falsify school records. For example, the record clearly showed that, on April 16, 2009, Ms. Dunn left the school campus without permission. The record shows that she signed out for lunch at 1:00 p.m. and that she returned at 1:30 p.m. However, the records also show at 1:45 p.m., that same day, Ms. Dunn signed into High Point Elementary in order to supervise an intern. Again, on April 22, 2009, Ms. Dunn left Seminole High School without permission or signing out at 9:46 a.m. Walter Weller (Mr. Weller), the principal of Seminole High School, credibly testified that co-teachers, like Ms. Dunn, are placed in exceptional student education classes in order to assist with the students' individual education plans and to help the students succeed. Further, he credibly testified that it was important that teachers remain on campus to keep classrooms covered, and it is a safety issue for the students. James Lott (Mr. Lott), an administrator in the Office of Professional Standards for the School District, credibly testified that the School District felt that progressive discipline was not appropriate in Ms. Dunn's case, because her actions amounted to stealing time and outright falsification of records. Ms. Dunn testified that she did not dispute that she had the second job and claimed that the collective bargaining agreement allowed her to work a second job. Ms. Dunn testified that she never used time off with pay and that the School District should have used a progressive discipline against her, rather than terminating her employment. Further, Ms. Dunn claimed that she and the School District had reached an agreement concerning her claim for unemployment compensation that the School District "would not go after my certificate." Ms. Dunn showed no remorse or acknowledgement of her many untruthful statements or wrongdoing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Dunn violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(5)(a), and suspending her educator’s certificate for two years followed by a period of three years' probation during which she shall be required, along with standard conditions utilized by the Education Practices Commission, to complete a three-hour college level course in ethics during the first year of her probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 27th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Allan Bonilla, currently Principal of Riviera Junior High School, was one of at least two assistant principals who attempted to work with Venus Tara Rodriguez during her 7th grade experience there in the 1984-1985 regular school year. He has been employed four years at that facility. Immediately prior to the winter vacation (commonly known as the extended Christmas holidays), on December 20, 1984, Venus left the campus without prior permission, this activity resulted in a two-day indoor suspension. In February, 1985, she received a three-day indoor suspension as the result of tardiness which culminated in an outdoor suspension the same month because her behavior at the three-day indoor suspension was so disruptive that it was deemed ineffective for her and the other students. In March, 1985, her rude and disruptive classroom behavior resulted in two indoor suspensions. In April 1985, as a result of her refusal to work during the last indoor suspension, she was assigned an outdoor suspension. Mr. Bonilla did not work with Venus as regularly as another assistant principal who was not available for hearing, but he expressed personal knowledge of the foregoing events and had interacted with Venus on several occasions for being out of class and boisterous. His assessment was that Venus could do the work required of her but that her behavior was so disruptive in the classroom that at the conclusion of the regular 1984-1985 school year she was failing two out of six subjects and was doing approximately "D" work in the rest. He agreed with the decision to assign her to an alternative school program, which decision was made because of Venus' need of individual attention and smaller class due to her habit of "acting out" in large groups. Venus' parents were contacted concerning each suspension. Mr. Bonilla testified that Venus has successfully finished 7th grade during the 1985 summer school session at GRE Lee opportunity School and he has received notice she will be reassigned and enrolled at Riviera Junior High School for the 1985-1986 school year commencing in September 1985.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the School Board enter a final order returning Venus Tara Rodriguez to Riviera Junior High School. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 29th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mark A. Valentine, Esquire 3050 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33137-4198 Ms. Wilhelmina A. Rodriguez 4110 S. W. 104th Place Miami, Florida 33165 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1510 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged and violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is charged with the responsibility of certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Respondent is a teacher. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held Florida Educator's Certificate 1266409, covering the area Exceptional Student Education (ESE). Respondent's Background Respondent earned a bachelor's degree in special education from New York University and a master's degree in early childhood special education. From 1998 to 2015 she taught ESE in self-contained classrooms (classrooms dedicated to ESE students) in New York. Respondent moved to Florida and began working for Orange County Public Schools, where she was employed in February 2015 as an ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary School (Ocoee Elementary). For reasons unrelated to this case, Respondent was moved to the position of behavioral specialist (a non-classroom position), but returned to ESE classroom teaching in the fall of 2017. Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) is a "best practice" crisis de- escalation protocol used district-wide in Orange County Public Schools. Respondent is CPI trained and certified. In June 2017, Respondent injured her shoulder and ankle at work while she was attempting to pick a student up from the floor. She returned to work after a few weeks of physical therapy. She continues to have pain in her shoulder and ankle. Respondent also suffers from asthma and recurrent nerve pain. By all accounts, Respondent was a dedicated and effective ESE teacher at Ocoee Elementary. She used her own funds to purchase supplies for her ESE students, including exercise balls for autistic students to prevent them from rocking in standard-issue chairs. Her evaluations from Ocoee Elementary were all "effective" or "highly effective." All of the witnesses who had occasion to observe Respondent in the classroom gave her high marks. There is no evidence that Respondent ever acted in anger or frustration with a student. She is accused of having done so in the incident at issue here. Respondent's Classroom For the fall of 2017, Respondent taught ESE students in a self- contained classroom at Ocoee Elementary. The grade level of her students spanned three grades, from second to fourth grade. The class size was approximately 12 students. The students were autistic and/or intellectually disabled. Paraprofessionals were assigned to assist Respondent in the classroom, including Cory Baker, Chanda Nguyen, and Michelle Hartley. The classroom had a designated "safe space," a small open area approximately three to four feet wide located between a large portable closet on wheels, a file cabinet on one side, and a wall on the other side. The safe space floor was covered with a soft mat and pillows. Posters on the safe space wall showed students how to breathe, relax, and decompress. A bathroom was located inside the classroom. The door opened out to the classroom. The door could be locked from the inside. Respondent and the paraprofessionals assigned to the classroom had access to an Allen key to unlock the bathroom door, but a disc had to be "popped" off of the lock to use it. Ocoee Elementary had a "crisis team" that could be called to assist when a student was in crisis, including removing the student if necessary. The crisis team included Juan Colon, who was the school's behavior specialist, and Isaac Bowen, a behavior trainer. The crisis team typically responded to a call for assistance within one to two minutes. The Incident with Student E.T. E.T. was assigned to Respondent's ESE classroom for the fall of 2017. He was 12 years old at that time. The other students ranged from seven to nine years of age. At approximately 5'6", E.T. was not only the largest student in the class, but he was also larger, and about four inches taller, than Respondent. E.T. was considered to be intellectually disabled. He was learning on a first or second grade level and his IQ was below 70. Some of the other students in the classroom were autistic, but E.T. was not. A Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) is a written plan that identifies problematic behaviors of a particular ESE student and strategies staff should use to address them. E.T. had a BIP that listed three problematic behaviors: (1) noncompliance (that is, refusing to perform tasks, by saying words like "no," "this is stupid," making faces or squeaking noises, or simply walking away); (2) physical aggression (including aggressive posturing towards his peers and throwing small objects like pencils, erasers, and papers); and (3) elopement (defined as walking away from staff). On the morning of October 12, 2017, E.T. began engaging in disruptive behavior that ultimately required his removal from the classroom. The disruptive behavior began when E.T. crawled under the desk of one or more other students and grabbed crayons and pencils that were not his. Respondent attempted to de-escalate and redirect E.T. with oral instructions, but her attempts failed. Ultimately, Respondent called the crisis team for help with E.T. Mr. Bowen arrived at Respondent's classroom within a short time with two other behavior trainers. The rest of the class was taken to the playground. Respondent and Mr. Bowen sat with E.T. at a table to work on compliance tasks, and E.T.'s behavior and mood improved. Respondent and Mr. Bowen walked with E.T. to the playground to retrieve the rest of the class. Respondent, E.T., and the rest of the class went back to the classroom. Mr. Bowen and the other behavior trainers left to respond to another call. On the way back to Respondent's classroom, E.T. refused to walk in line with the other students. One of the paraprofessionals walked with E.T. and redirected him back to the line. Back in the classroom, E.T.'s disruptive behavior resumed. He grabbed pencils and crayons that were not his and crawled under the desks of other students. He also blew mucus out of his nose, spit saliva onto his hands, and wiped his mucus and saliva all over his body. Respondent attempted to redirect E.T., initially by ignoring his behavior. When that failed, she attempted to redirect him with instructions and incentives. This strategy also failed. Finally, Respondent asked two of the paraprofessionals, Ms. Nguyen and Ms. Hartley, to take the other students to the sensory room, an activity room located outside of Respondent's classroom. The class was removed in the hope that E.T.'s behavior would improve once he was denied an audience of his peers. Respondent asked Ms. Baker to remain in the classroom with her to assist with E.T. When E.T.'s behavior did not improve, Respondent and Ms. Baker called the crisis team again, but this time they were unable to reach Mr. Colon or Mr. Bowen because they were either responding to other calls for help or in a radio "dead zone." Respondent thought E.T. might respond better if he was allowed to talk with his mother, so she called E.T.'s mother and allowed him to talk to her on the class telephone. At that time, E.T. was under a table in the classroom pretending to be a turtle. E.T. feigned illness (fake coughing) and told his mother he wanted to go home. He also asked for potato chips to eat. The call terminated and E.T. refused to come out from under the table. After repeated unsuccessful attempts to coax E.T. out from under the table without laying hands on him, Respondent carefully pulled E.T. from under the table, making sure he did not hit his head. E.T. was not injured in any way in the process. Respondent then took E.T. to the classroom safe space. Once in the safe space, E.T. started to crawl under the portable wheeled closet. Respondent was concerned E.T. would injure himself in the process— legitimately so—and lifted him up and held him against the wall. E.T. made himself go limp to become "dead weight" and slumped down to the floor mat. Respondent lifted him back to his feet again and E.T. slumped back down to the floor. This process was repeated several times until E.T. reached on top of the closet and grabbed a basket of toys, causing the basket contents to fall to the safe space floor. The basket included toy train cars made of die cast metal. E.T. grabbed one of the train cars off the floor and threw it over the head of Ms. Baker, who was standing in the middle of the classroom. He threw another train car at Respondent, striking her in the head. Respondent stepped on one of the train cars and fell hard against the wall, pinning E.T. between her and the wall. E.T. said, "My chest hurts, my heart hurts," and "I think I am going to die." Respondent's shoulder hurt and she was short of breath. Having reached her physical limits, Respondent decided to remove E.T. from the safe space because she was concerned he would be able to reach other items on top of the closet, including a heavy paper slicer with a sharp cutting arm. Respondent's plan was to transport E.T. out of the classroom to the "calm-down" room, an empty classroom used to allow students in crisis to decompress. The calm-down room is located about 20 to 30 yards from Respondent's classroom. Respondent guided E.T. out of the safe space and toward the classroom door, with his arm under her armpit. This would be an approved CPI transport hold but for the fact that CPI transport requires two adults to transport a student in crisis in this manner, with each of the student's arms under the armpits of an adult on each side of the student. Ms. Baker—who was also CPI-trained—did not offer to serve as the second adult or provide any other assistance to Respondent while she was struggling to transport E.T. out of the safe space. E.T.—apparently unfazed by falling with Respondent against the safe space wall moments earlier—started to laugh and grabbed crayons off the desk of another student as he was being guided toward the classroom door. E.T. pulled away from Respondent and started walking quickly ahead of her. Respondent tried to maintain a hold on E.T., but was unable to do so without help from anyone (such as Ms. Baker, who continued as a spectator to Respondent's struggles). E.T. announced he was going to the bathroom and headed for the bathroom door. Respondent rushed to stop him, but tripped and landed hard against the bathroom door with E.T. Respondent was concerned—legitimately so—that E.T. could lock himself in the bathroom and create a mess or injure himself before the key to the bathroom could be accessed. Respondent applied all of her weight to the bathroom door, while E.T. held onto the doorknob, to prevent him from accessing the bathroom. Respondent held E.T. against the bathroom door, using her forearm against his chest. Respondent then struggled to lead E.T. away from the bathroom door and toward the classroom exit door, sliding with him against the wall. Natalie Hatch, a staffing specialist at Ocoee Elementary, and Mr. Colon entered the classroom door when Respondent was struggling to keep E.T. out of the bathroom. Mr. Colon immediately assisted Respondent to escort E.T. to the calm-down room using the dual-hold CPI transport position. On the way to the calm-down room, E.T. was crying and upset and he continued to wipe mucus and saliva on his body. In the calm-down room, E.T. tore paper and threw it on the floor. After about 15 minutes, he calmed down and Mr. Colon talked to him about the importance of following instructions. Ms. Colon asked E.T. to pick the paper off the floor and E.T. complied. Mr. Bowen also arrived and walked with E.T. and Mr. Colon back to Respondent's classroom. There were no further incidents involving E.T. that day. E.T. was not injured, physically or otherwise. The Findings of Fact regarding the incident with E.T. are based almost entirely on Respondent's testimony, which the undersigned found to be highly credible. The findings are also consistent with the credible testimony of Mr. Colon, who found nothing wrong with Respondent's attempt to keep E.T. from going into the bathroom by holding him against the bathroom door, nor did he find anything wrong with anything else he witnessed after entering Respondent's classroom. Ms. Baker stood in the middle of the classroom while Respondent struggled with E.T. Ms. Baker could not see all of the safe room interactions between Respondent and E.T., because her field of view was blocked by the closet and cabinet that formed the boundary of the safe space. Ms. Baker made repeated calls to the crisis team, but otherwise failed to offer any assistance to Respondent. Ms. Baker did not voice any objection to the manner in which Respondent physically interacted with E.T. The following day, Ms. Baker complained to administration that Respondent physically mistreated E.T. This led to an investigation of the incident and ultimately to Respondent's termination. Rejection of Corey Baker's Testimony Petitioner relies chiefly on the testimony of Ms. Baker to prove its case. For the reasons that follow, Ms. Baker's testimony was not credible and has not been accorded any weight. Ms. Baker's account of the incident differed from Respondent's in that she contends Respondent "manhandled" E.T. out of frustration, including: "snatching" him out from under the table when he was pretending to be a turtle; and repeatedly slamming E.T. hard against the wall of the safe room; and later the bathroom door. Essentially, Ms. Baker accuses Respondent of physically mistreating E.T. out of frustration with his conduct that day. Ms. Baker's testimony is rejected where it conflicts with the testimony of Respondent and Mr. Colon for several reasons. First, Ms. Baker 's field of view of the safe space was obstructed. No credit has been given to her testimony about what occurred when E.T. and Respondent were in the safe space together, because she could not see all of what happened there. That she would offer testimony describing events she could not have seen casts doubt on her overall veracity. Ms. Baker's credibility also suffers from her admitted failure to intercede in any way to aid a student she now claims to have been physically mistreated for a prolonged period of time. If, as Ms. Baker contends, Respondent "manhandled" E.T. while the three were alone in the classroom, then Ms. Baker should have attempted to separate the two or at least warn Respondent that she was being too rough; she did neither. Here is Ms. Baker's explanation for why she stood idle when Respondent and E.T. struggled: Q. So why didn't you jump into that space and help her lift him up? Why didn't you do something? A. Because, like I said, I do not feel comfortable with it being a blind corner [referring to the safe space] and already seeing stuff done that shouldn't have been done. If somebody came in, it would have literally looked like we were both just trying to take this kid out. In other words, Ms. Baker claims she did nothing to protect E.T. because she might also get into trouble. This explanation is rejected. It is inconceivable that Ms. Baker would sit back and do nothing if she believed Respondent was mistreating E.T. The rational explanation for why Ms. Baker did nothing to intercede to stop Respondent is that Respondent's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. Finally, Ms. Baker's credibility suffers from her embellishment of the incident, including the trauma she claims to have suffered after-the-fact. Ms. Baker testified that the incident was so traumatic that she had nightmares for a week or two afterwards. She went so far as to blame the stress of witnessing the incident for ending her relationship with her boyfriend. There was no evidence that E.T. was injured in the slightest. Indeed, as Ms. Baker admitted, E.T. laughed and continued to grab crayons that were not his after he left the safe space with Respondent. Ms. Baker grossly distorted the resulting trauma she claims to have suffered. For all of these reasons—and the undersigned's observation of the demeanor of the witnesses who testified live at the final hearing— Ms. Baker's account of the incident with E.T. is found to be grossly exaggerated and unreliable, and is given no weight.2 The OCPS Investigation Petitioner also offered the testimony of Acacia Vierbicky, an investigator for Orange County Public Schools (OCPS). Ms. Vierbicky was charged with investigating the incident involving E.T. after Ms. Baker complained to administration. Ms. Vierbicky testified that during the investigation, Respondent admitted to her that she "snatched" E.T.'s arm from underneath the table when he was pretending to be a turtle, and pinned him against the wall—face first—in the safe space. The Administrative Complaint does not allege facts regarding the manner in which Respondent removed E.T. from under the table as a predicate for any charges. Regardless, Respondent denied that she "snatched" E.T. from under the table and explained why she removed him from underneath the table. Respondent's testimony was credible and is accepted over Ms. Vierbicky's recollection of what she was told during her investigation. 2 Additional evidence was offered to impeach Ms. Baker's credibility. First, to suggest bias, Respondent and Ms. Baker were close friends at one time, but that relationship soured the summer before this incident occurred. Second, another teacher testified that Ms. Baker came forward with false allegations against her in an attempt to get her fired. Finally, another witness testified that Ms. Baker is prone to exaggerate events involving students in general. While all of this testimony may be true, it is unnecessary to rely upon it to reach the conclusion that Ms. Baker's testimony is unreliable. The characterization of whether Respondent "pinned" or "held" E.T. against the wall of the safe space with the weight of her body is not an important distinction here. What is important is that Respondent did so to prevent E.T. from crawling under the wheeled closet or grabbing dangerous items from the top of the closet. Holding E.T. against the wall under these circumstances—whether an approved CPI hold or not—was entirely reasonable to prevent E.T. from hurting himself or others. Ms. Vierbicky's testimony as to her recollection of Respondent's admissions is rejected where it differs from Respondent's live testimony.3 Crisis Prevention Intervention CPI is not the law; it has not been adopted by statute or rule. Petitioner offered the testimony of Kimberly Ann Smith, an expert in CPI and behavior analysis. Ms. Smith testified credibly that pinning or holding a student against a wall or holding a student with his arm behind his back is not an approved CPI hold. But, as Ms. Smith repeatedly acknowledged, CPI is a "best practice" protocol. As such, restraining a student with a non-CPI approved hold can be reasonable under certain circumstances even if it is not the "best practice." Ms. Smith testified that it is acceptable to physically restrain a student when the student may hurt himself or others. Ms. Smith also agreed that E.T. could have injured himself crawling under the wheeled closet and that throwing the metal trains presented a legitimate safety concern. The CPI training materials offer examples of approved holds that one teacher can apply to restrain a student, but these holds are not appropriate for a student 3 Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary of the incident involving E.T. was admitted as an exhibit in this proceeding, as were the witness statements she collected during her investigation. Although admitted, these exhibits have not been relied upon here because they are largely hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. It is also noteworthy that there are obvious material omissions from Ms. Vierbicky's investigative summary, including the failure to mention that E.T. grabbed and threw metal trains while in the safe space and the failure to mention the fact that E.T. was not injured. Thus, even if not hearsay, or predicated on hearsay, the investigative summary represents an incomplete assessment of the incident with E.T., and is unreliable for this reason alone. who is taller than the teacher. In fact, these holds should only be used on a student who is at least a head shorter than the teacher. E.T. is significantly taller than Respondent. Petitioner offered no evidence of a CPI-approved hold that would have been appropriate for Respondent to use under the circumstances she confronted with E.T. Petitioner also offered testimony from Ms. Hatch to show that Respondent did not use a CPI-approved restraint when E.T. was attempting to enter the bathroom. Ms. Hatch testified that when she entered the classroom, she saw Respondent holding E.T. with his face against the wall with his hand behind his back. This differs from Mr. Colon's testimony, which was that Respondent was holding E.T. with his back against the bathroom door with her forearm on his chest. Although Mr. Colon's and Ms. Hatch's recollection of the positioning of Respondent and E.T. differ, the distinction is not material. Respondent had a legitimate concern to keep E.T. from entering the bathroom under the circumstances, and her attempts to do so—although not a CPI-approved hold—were reasonable under the circumstances. For all of these reasons, Respondent's admitted failure to use CPI- approved holds to restrain E.T. is not evidence that she failed to make reasonable effort to protect E.T. from any potentially harmful conditions, or that she exposed him to a risk of mental or physical harm. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent, in fact, made reasonable effort to protect E.T. from conditions harmful to learning and/or to his mental or physical health and/or to his safety.
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. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRIAN A. NEWMAN 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 27th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Law Office of Ron Weaver Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) 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 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 739881, covering the areas of Physical Education and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. He has held a certification in Florida since 2005. Respondent is African- American. At all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been employed as an In- School Suspension (ISS) Teacher at the CARE Program in the Calhoun County School District (District). The CARE acronym is shorthand for character, achievement, respect, and education. The CARE Program is a second-chance school for students who have been suspended for more than ten days, have been suspended for drug offenses, or who are currently in a juvenile facility. The first time a student is assigned to the CARE Program, it is for a 90-day term. If the student does well, he or she returns to their regular school. The second referral is for a period of 180 days; the third for a year. The CARE Program generally has approximately 30-40 students at a time. In November 2012, the program had approximately 31-32 students. The CARE Program is located at a facility that used to house a vocational complex, next to the adult school. Also housed in this complex is the In-School Suspension (ISS) class, where students serve in-school suspensions of less than ten days. Students are referred to the ISS class for behavior such as tardiness and being disruptive in the classroom. The number of students in the ISS classroom varies, because it depends on how many students have been referred. There is a limit to how many students can be in the ISS class, because each school has a cap on the number of students it can refer at any given time. Testimony varied as to how many students were present at the time of the incident giving rise to this case. The most reasonable and credible testimony indicates that on November 14, 2012, there were approximately 15-20 students in the ISS class. There was adequate room in the ISS classroom for the number of students in the class. Some time prior to the incident giving rise to this case, part of the complex where the CARE Program and the ISS class were housed underwent construction. As a result, several staff members working in the complex had tires punctured because of construction debris in the area. The District would reimburse employees for repairs to tires that were punctured if the employee submitted the documentation related to the repair. Respondent had requested two new tires, as opposed to repair of his tires. Although the record is not clear when Respondent made his request, there was some delay in any action being taken to address it. Wilson McClellan was the superintendent of the District from 2000 to 2004, and then again from 2008 to 2012, after which he retired. Mr. McClellan, who is Caucasian, was an educator in Calhoun County for approximately 25 years. He had worked with Respondent in a summer recreation program at some point before Respondent was hired by the District. Mr. McClellan had told Respondent that if there was an opening in Calhoun County, he would give Respondent a call and let him know. On November 13, 2012, Mr. McClellan was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent. The next day, he visited the CARE Program and spoke with several of the staff there, presumably to touch base with people with whom he had worked. He came to the CARE Program around midday, and class was in session. While he was there, Mr. McClellan went to speak with Respondent about Respondent’s pending request for reimbursement for his tires. While repairs had been authorized, no other staff member had requested new tires. Mr. McClellan told Respondent that he would need to submit documentation for the reimbursement for action by the School Board, as opposed to the superintendent, because Mr. McClellan did not feel comfortable authorizing the expenditure when no one else had requested reimbursement for new tires instead of repair of existing ones. Mr. McClellan knocked on the door to the ISS classroom and he and Respondent went into the small office adjacent to it. When he told Respondent about the need to submit the reimbursement matter to the Board, Respondent became angry and walked back into his classroom. Respondent told McClellan, in the presence of his students, that if he had a different last name and a different color, then the results would have been different. McClellan denied Respondent’s claim and left the classroom. Mr. Thomas’s classroom had an inside door, going into a hallway, and an outside door that led to a covered pavilion area with picnic tables. Also adjacent to the area with the picnic tables is Barbara Hathaway’s office. Ms. Hathaway served as the Dean of Students for the CARE Program, a position that functions much like a principal does in a traditional school. When Mr. McClellan left the classroom, he went to the area with the picnic tables. Ms. Hathaway saw him there and came out to speak with him. While Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan were speaking, Respondent came out of his classroom and asked Ms. Hathaway to get someone to cover his class because he was “pretty hot” and needed to walk. According to Ms. Hathaway, Respondent was agitated and upset. She did not understand him to mean he was overheated based on temperature, but rather that he was upset or angry, and her testimony is credited. Without waiting for coverage for his class, Respondent walked away from the classroom and the area where Mr. McClellan and Ms. Hathaway were standing and up the sidewalk. Ms. Hathaway left to ask another staff member to cover the classroom and was going to walk back outside when she heard Mr. Thomas speaking loudly. She could not hear what Mr. Thomas said, but his tone was agitated. She noticed that the ISS classroom door to the outside was open, and the students could hear the heated conversation between their instructor and the superintendent, so she opened the inside door and told a student to shut the outside door. Ms. Hathaway thought from the students’ reactions that they were enjoying the interchange between Mr. McClellan and Mr. Thomas. She used her phone to call for a resource officer because she felt the situation was agitated and that someone should be present to intervene. After Ms. Hathaway walked inside to arrange for coverage for the classroom, Mr. Thomas had walked back down the sidewalk to Mr. McClellan. He repeated to Mr. McClellan that in this county, if he had a different last name and a different color, it would probably be a different result. Mr. McClellan became impatient and said, “shut up Ed, I am just not wanting to hear any more about that.” Mr. Thomas walked closer to him, glared and said, “if you ever say shut up again to me, I will be the last black man you ever say that to.”1/ Mr. Thomas is a large, imposing figure, and according to Mr. McClellan, he spoke in a loud, angry voice and “bowed up” in a threatening gesture; however, he was never close enough to the superintendent to actually strike him. While Ms. Hathaway could not hear the actual language being used, both Ms. Barbee, who came to cover the ISS classroom, and the students in the classroom were able to hear the colorful exchange. Ms. Barbee testified that she did not remember the actual conversation, but that there was “some cussing and hollering.” Her statement written the day of the incident indicates that Mr. Thomas used the term “f**k.” Likewise, P.G., one of the students in the classroom, testified that Mr. Thomas told Mr. McClellan, “don’t tell me to shut the f**k up,” and for him to “shut the f**k up.” P.G. believed the students in the room were shocked at the interchange.2/ After this exchange, Respondent once again walked away from Mr. McClellan and up the sidewalk away from his class. On both occasions, Respondent was five to six classroom lengths away from his classroom, and unable to monitor in any way the actions of his students. Ms. Hathaway, as noted above, was not present for this heated exchange and did not hear what was said. When she returned outside, Mr. Thomas was standing on the sidewalk up the hill from the classroom. She spoke to Mr. McClellan, who told her about the conversation with Mr. Thomas. What he told her involved the reimbursement issue and not any complaint about overcrowding. About that time Warren Tanner, the school resource officer, came around the corner. When he arrived, he saw Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan sitting on a bench under the pavilion, and Mr. Thomas was standing at the end of the driveway at the end of the building. Mr. Tanner asked what had happened, and Mr. McClellan told him that Mr. Thomas had threatened him. Mr. Thomas walked back down the hill to where the others were standing, and Mr. McClellan told him to go home for the rest of the day. Mr. Thomas went into his classroom briefly, then came out and asked Mr. McClellan if he was sending him home for the rest of the day, and was told, “yes.” Mr. Thomas got in his truck to leave, then got out and asked Mr. Tanner if this was going to be a complaint, and Mr. Tanner told him, not at this time. Mr. McClellan returned to his office and called David House, the school board attorney. He related the events of the morning and told Mr. House that, in light of past behavior by Mr. Thomas and the current incident, he was considering terminating Mr. Thomas. Later that afternoon, Vicki Davis, assistant superintendent for the District, called Mr. Tanner and asked him to collect statements from those who witnessed or heard the morning’s events. Mr. Tanner got statements from Mr. McClellan, Ms. Hathaway, Ms. Barbee, and several students in Mr. Thomas’s class.3/ On Thursday, November 15, 2012, Mr. McClellan wrote to Mr. Thomas advising him that he was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Respondent had been the subject of discipline previously, and there had been concerns expressed about his behavior during his employment in Calhoun County. For example, in January 2008, he received a formal reprimand for allegedly confronting a fellow teacher in front of students in a loud, belligerent, and profane manner.4/ On June 3, 2008, Respondent received a second reprimand for allegedly leaving a magazine with an unclothed woman on the cover in the Health Building bathroom where it could be viewed by students. On January 13, 2011, Neva Miller, the principal of Blountstown Middle School, wrote a lengthy letter to Superintendent McClellan detailing several alleged incidents involving Mr. Thomas that caused her to “express concerns that I have as to the effectiveness and concerning anger control abilities of Edward Thomas.” A two-page document titled “Ed Thomas Issues Calendar Year 2011” was placed in his personnel file, recounting a series of concerns regarding alleged deficiencies in his performance. On February 23, 2012, Ms. Hathaway, as Dean of the CARE Program, documented an alleged incident involving a ninth-grade student.5/ On December 11, 2012, Mr. McClellan’s successor, Superintendent Ralph Yoder, issued a Notice of Charges for Dismissal to the Calhoun County School Board, recommending Respondent be suspended without pay and dismissed from employment by the District. The Notice of Charges stated, “Mr. Thomas has a history of engaging in insubordinate, hostile and confrontational behavior toward faculty members and administrators, which began in 2007 and culminated in an incident that occurred on November 14, 2012, involving the former Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Tommy McClellan. Mr. Thomas has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct his behavior, but he has failed to do so.” The Notice goes on to describe 13 separate incidents and references several others. Only the incident involving Mr. McClellan on November 14, 2012, is alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and Petitioner presented no evidence to prove what happened with respect to the other incidents. No findings are made concerning the validity of the other allegations in the Notice of Charges. It is considered solely to show that the District took action with respect to Respondent’s employment. Likewise, it is unclear what, if any, proceedings were conducted with respect to the Notice of Charges before the school board. Respondent acknowledged that his employment was terminated as of December 11, 2012, the day the Notice was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s teaching certificate for one year; that he submit to an evaluation for anger management by the Recovery Network on terms to be set by the Education Practices Commission; and that upon re-employment as an educator, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, with terms and conditions to be set by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 19th day of June, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 195597 covering the area of industrial arts. During the school years of 1973-1974 to 1983-1984, Respondent had no persistent pattern involving professional incompetency or unprofessional conduct. The Respondent was employed as a teacher of industrial arts at Vero Beach Junior High School in the Indian River County School District during the 1983-1984, 1984-1985, and the first three weeks of the 1985-1986 school years, until his suspension effective September 16, 1985. During 1983-1984, he also apparently taught mathematics. At various times, the classes Respondent taught at Vero Beach Junior High School included some classes directed to regular students and others directed to exceptional students, including the educable mentally handicapped (EMH). EMH students have intelligence quotients (IQs) of less than 70. At all times, all of the industrial arts classes taught by Respondent were elective. THE 1983-1984 SCHOOL YEAR Mr. Marion Bass was the Respondent's supervising principal at all times material to the administrative complaint. As the Respondent's supervising principal, Mr. Bass observed and evaluated the Respondent's teaching performance. Prior to evaluating the Respondent's teaching performance, Principal Bass received formal training in the evaluation of teachers and had 12 to 13 years of practical experience in conducting teacher evaluations. Principal Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance informally on two or three occasions during the 1983- 1984 school year and twice formally at the end of that school year. In his observations and evaluation of Respondent, Bass found the Respondent's performance to be unsatisfactory. Specifically, Bass observed that the Respondent did not satisfactorily control students in his classroom, his planning was not as complete as it should be, implementation of his lesson plans was not acceptable, and Respondent's "voice procedures" (i.e., diction and volume) were unsatisfactory. Bass opined that the Respondent did not have a specific structure to his industrial arts class. Even if students were knowledgeable of their assigned task on a given day, the students were not always on-task. Instead, they would be out of their seats, moving around the room and discussing topics unrelated to class work. In Bass' view, Respondent failed to provide proper supervision of the students, and as a result, the students did not appear to respect the Respondent's instructions. Bass observed that students ignored Respondent's instructions to sit down and be quiet. On other occasions, he observed that the Respondent ignored some students' off-task behavior while he was involved with others. However, none of Bass' observations in the 1983- 1984 school year were reduced to writing nor formally discussed with Respondent, and the formal year-end evaluation of Respondent of March 16, 1984, by Laurent Smith, Assistant Principal, rated Respondent as overall satisfactory and his contract was subsequently renewed for the 1984-1985 school year. On or about May 15, 1984, Bass inadvertently discovered that the Respondent was not knowledgeable of his mathematics students' progress in their skills continuum. This was particularly disturbing to Bass in that each student is required by the Indian River County School Board to accomplish at least 70 percent proficiency in state-mandated skills in order to be promoted to the next higher grade. Thereafter, Bass made an attempt to ascertain the level of skills accomplishment by the students in Respondent's classes. While doing so, Bass questioned Respondent about the matter. The Respondent indicated that certain students were in the Compensatory Education Program. Bass subsequently learned that those students were not compensatory education students but were Level Two students. It alarmed Bass to discover that the Respondent did not even know what level of students he had been teaching for seven months. THE 1984-1985 SCHOOL YEAR On September 17, 1984, Bass prepared a memorandum to Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel for the School Board. In that memorandum, Bass outlined his concerns regarding Respondent's teaching performance. The memorandum addressed seven general areas of deficiency: failure to control students' behavior; failure to provide meaningful structure and direction and failure to support an enthusiasm for learning; failure to demonstrate the ability to plan a course of study with overall goals and objectives providing direction and continuity in the subject matter; difficulty in implementing what lesson plans the Respondent did develop; addressing only a small percentage of the students in his class when presenting a lesson; difficulty with proper grammar and diction; and a demonstrated lack of understanding for the basic academic and social skill needs of his students. Following preparation of his September 17, 1984 memorandum, Bass continued to make observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. Bass observed the Respondent's teaching performance on October 15, 1984 and completed a Classroom Observation Instrument containing his notes of that observation which rated the Respondent's performance in the classroom as "extremely poor, one of great concern." The notations on the Classroom Observation Instrument itself indicate that the Respondent gave directions to a limited number of students, assisted only a small number of students, engaged in very little class communication, did not enunciate well, used poor diction, utilized "very poor" classroom management, and failed to keep the students on task. Following Bass' observation of the Respondent on October 15, 1984, he prepared a written memorandum of his concerns and his suggestions for improvement. He met with the Respondent and discussed both his concerns and suggestions for improvement. The Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. During this conference, Bass told the Respondent that he was there to help him in any way that he knew how to help. Bass expressed similar sentiments in other conferences with Respondent regarding Respondent's teaching performance and offered to allow Respondent to visit other schools and other teachers both in and out of the school district in an effort to help Respondent remediate his observed deficiencies. On September 13, 1984, Theresa Wagner, chairperson of the vocational department of Vero Beach Junior High School, sent all teachers within that department a memorandum establishing dates for computer usage. One of the components of the Respondent's industrial arts curriculum was demonstration of computer literacy. Respondent received a copy of the memorandum. On October 15, 1984, the first day of the Respondent's assigned time block for use of the computers, the Respondent advised Ms. Wagner that his class was not ready to use the computers and would probably not be ready the following week. However, until that date, Respondent had expressed no problem with the time block assigned to him and had requested no assistance in preparing for this new function of the curriculum. When Ms. Wagner reminded him that computer skills were a part of his required curriculum at that time, Respondent replied that he could not understand why he had to teach something he did not know anything about. Further, he stated that he could not learn it. Respondent apparently made two attempts to learn the computer and gave up. Respondent's failure to adapt himself to the new computer programming time blocks inconvenienced Ms. Wagner and others who were required to share the single computer during the finite time available in a school day/school year. At hearing, Respondent advanced the theory that because his major was in TIE (Trade Industrial Education), he ought not to be required to adapt to teaching manufacturing, woodworking, and computer literacy, which are outside of his expressed field of interest, but which apparently are very much contemplated within the general field of industrial arts. Additionally, he felt he certainly should not be required to adapt to teaching all these "new" areas at one time. However, it appears he had been teaching woodworking for some period of time anyway. Overall, Respondent made it clear he did not want to teach the curriculum assigned to him. As a part of her assigned responsibilities as department chairperson, Ms. Wagner was required to observe each of the teachers within the vocational department. On October 10, 1984, she observed the Respondent. Her memorandum to the Respondent dated October 10, 1984, outlined her observations as well as her suggestions for his improvement. Ms. Wagner had difficulty understanding the Respondent when he was teaching. She suggested that he talk louder and make a special effort to enunciate clearly. She observed that the Respondent failed to provide a handout for one girl in the class. The girl raised her hand and had it up for five minutes before the Respondent noticed the student and gave her the handout. Ms. Wagner observed a lot of non-essential, non-productive movement of students in the classroom. Finally, she noted among other things that the last lesson plans which the Respondent turned in were for the week of September 17, 1984, although he was on notice that he was supposed to turn in lesson plans weekly. Ms. Wagner observed little, if any, instruction being provided by the Respondent. The students failed to respond to the Respondent's directions and did not pay attention to him or obey his directions. In fact, the majority of the students ignored the Respondent during this observation by Ms. Wagner. Lesson plans were an on-going problem between Ms. Wagner and Respondent. Only when Ms. Wagner specifically asked the Respondent for lesson plans did she receive them. Those which she did receive from the Respondent were not satisfactory. In her opinion, any substitute teacher would have had a very difficult time teaching effectively based upon the plans which Respondent did submit to her. Although other departmental personnel sometimes missed turning in lesson plans timely, everyone except the Respondent eventually "caught up" with their lesson plans. Ms. Wagner later observed Respondent on several other occasions. Those observations of the Respondent's teaching performance were consistent with her observations on October 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, Richard Thomas, Vero Beach Junior High School Dean and Assistant Principal, observed the Respondent's classroom performance. Mr. Thomas is trained for such evaluations. Using the teacher evaluation form containing 39 observable "behaviors," Thomas rated the Respondent as "needs improvement" in 14 of the 39 categories based upon his observations on September 14, 1984. Thomas categorized the Respondent's performance on that date as incompetent. On September 20, 1984, Thomas became aware that the Respondent was sending a large number of student referrals to the Guidance Department for the purpose of having the students seek reassignments from his classes to other classes. Respondent's action was creating problems for the Guidance Department, the students, and the Respondent himself because by that point in the school year, a change of classes under the circumstances was impossible. Thomas prepared a letter dated September 20, 1984 to Respondent requesting that he refrain from such conduct. In the letter, Thomas offered to discuss the matter with the Respondent. Respondent's reasons for his acceleration of referrals was never made entirely clear. However, one explanation offered by the Respondent at formal hearing was that when he had behavioral problems with students in his classes and was not permitted to lock them out of the class (see findings of fact 21, 32, and 33 infra.) and was not otherwise "backed up" by Principal Bass and Assistant Principal Thomas, Respondent felt justified, as a strict disciplinarian, in referring those students whom he viewed as troublemakers to the Guidance Department either to be dealt with by Thomas or for reassignment elsewhere. Under the circumstances, this explanation by Respondent of strict discipline is flawed and unreasonable and evidences lack of classroom control. At hearing, Respondent expressed his objection to having exceptional and special education students in his classes due to their low IQs, even though he admittedly had taken courses in this area. Although all school and School Board personnel assumed Respondent was certified for EMH students, Respondent was not specifically so-certified. He maintained that because of their low IQs, EMH students created special discipline problems, which fact was confirmed by Mr. LaPointe and Mr. Bass. However, Mr. LaPointe, a specialist in the field, also opined that an industrial arts certificate should qualify Respondent to teach industrial arts to EMH students. Respondent attributed much of his professional troubles to the inability of the exceptional education students to learn as opposed to his own inability to teach. At first, Respondent further suggested Bass and Thomas had also assigned students with disciplinary problems to both his regular and exceptional classes. However, he could not substantiate this premise in light of the elective nature of all industrial arts classes. Overall, Respondent only made it clear that he did not want to teach the students assigned to him. On October 17, 1984, as a follow-up to his September 14, 1984 visit, Thomas observed Respondent teaching and prepared a Classroom Observation Instrument. He concluded that the Respondent's "with-it-ness" was poor because Respondent was oblivious to a fight which was about to break out between students in the back of his classroom and because a student had to approach the Respondent and almost physically pull on the Respondent's arm to get his attention. Thomas observed that the Respondent was not in control of his class and that he failed to maintain the attention of all students. Thomas observed no improvement in Respondent's performance on his October 17, 1984 return, except that on that particular date, the Respondent did attempt to implement some organizational structure through the use of an overhead projection covering four items. On November 9, 1984, Thomas wrote the Respondent a letter in regard to the manufacture of weapons by students in the Respondent's manufacturing class. Prior to that date, Thomas had verbally cautioned the Respondent about the manufacture of weapons by students in his class. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports a finding of fact that "weapons" per se were in fact created in Respondent's class with his knowledge. It was, however, demonstrated that various lathe-produced wooden objects, possibly intended by Respondent for use as chair legs, were smuggled out of his class by students. Although Respondent denied certain items described as "swords" and "paddles" were weapons and even that some of the "chair legs" were made in his class, the fact that he admitted that a paddle and certain "chair legs" could have been smuggled out by students indicates an appalling nonchalance for his duties of supervision of young people. It was further demonstrated that a sign bearing the expression "I LOVE SEX" and that a paddle bearing the expression "DUCK BUT!" [sic] were manufactured in Respondent's class without his disapproval. On October 16, 1984, Jean Carter, the Director of Vocational Adult and Community Education for the Indian River County School District, observed the Respondent's second period class. Ms. Carter is a qualified observer with the Florida Performance Measurement System. During her observation on October 16, 1984, Ms. Carter noted that the Respondent did not begin his class promptly. Students talked in loud voices and milled around the room. The Respondent had difficulty communicating with his students. Most of his comments were inaudible. The Respondent turned his back on some students when he spoke to other students. Few students attempted to write the notes shown on the overhead projector as the Respondent ordered. Other students never faced the projector, and the Respondent seemed to be unaware that they were not taking notes. Ms. Carter observed several students off task. Four or five students were throwing paper and spitballs around the room. The word "important" was misspelled on the transparency. Respondent exhibited no enthusiasm for the subject matter, never praised the students, spoke positively, or smiled. He did not appear to enjoy teaching. In November 1984, a request was made to the Florida Department of Education to provide an assistance review of the Respondent's teaching performance. The purpose of the assistance review was to provide the Respondent with assistance in becoming a more proficient teacher. Following the assistance review, a very lengthy, detailed report was prepared by the reviewer and submitted to the Indian River County School District. On February 7, 1985, a conference was held involving Superintendent Burns; Principal Bass; Dr. Eddie Hudson, Personnel Coordinator; Mrs. Shirley Hanawait, Assistant Superintendent; Ms. Carolyn Sheppard, CEA President; Jean Carter, Director of Vocational Education; Dr. Douglas King, Director of Personnel; and the Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review the report prepared by the Department of Education assistance reviewer and to make arrangements to provide Respondent with additional help and assistance as needed. In that conference, Respondent's supervisors made arrangements to correct, repair, or adjust equipment in Respondent's classroom; to have another industrial arts teacher assist Respondent; to provide Respondent with relief time to observe other professional teachers in the same vocational area; to send the Respondent to two professional conferences; to provide Respondent with professional journals; to provide Respondent with assistance through the department head; and to provide assistance from Mr. Bass in the areas of grading, lesson plans, supervision, management, and organization. Mr. Bass, Superintendent Burns, and Dr. King emphasized to Respondent that he must begin to show improvement in his performance immediately. Respondent was advised that if no improvement were demonstrated immediately, Respondent could be removed from continuing contract status or dismissed altogether. The Respondent received a copy of the conference summary prepared by Dr. King as a reminder of the action Respondent was expected to take to improve his classroom performance. Ms. Carter participated in the conference held with the Respondent on February 7, 1985, to review the assistance review report and to provide the Respondent with help. Her purpose in attending the conference was to provide the Respondent with assistance in any way possible to improve his performance. Ms. Carter later made sure that all of the Respondent's equipment was in proper working order, that he had copies of the performance standards mandated for the courses he taught, that he received professional journals, and that he was authorized to attend two conferences relating to his subject matter area. Respondent did not, however, attend either conference. Subsequent to the February 7, 1985 conference, Bass conducted five classroom observations of the Respondent's teaching performance. On each occasion, Bass completed a Classroom Observation Instrument. On March 8, 1985, Bass observed the Respondent's class and found that no valid learning activity was going on in the classroom. On March 12, 1985 at 7:35 a.m., Bass observed the Respondent's industrial arts class for exceptional education students. There were seven or eight students in the class. Bass observed that the Respondent gave the students approximately 15 vocabulary words to look up while the Respondent straightened up the classroom. In Bass' opinion, such an assignment for exceptional education students was inappropriate due to their limited intelligence, attention span, and the purpose for which such students were enrolled in the course. Mr. Bass characterized Respondent's performance on that date as poor. Subsequently, on the same date, Bass observed the Respondent teaching manufacturing to a regular class of about 17 students. Although Bass characterized Respondent's performance in this class as better, he still gave it an overall score of poor because Respondent's presentation lacked continuity and his discourse was "disjointed." Bass continued to note that the Respondent had difficulty with grammar, enunciation, and projection of an enthusiasm for the subject matter. On March 18, 1985, Bass again observed Respondent's manufacturing class for exceptional students. Although Bass also termed this observation better than those he had made of Respondent in the past, he still considered it a below average observation. On the observation instrument itself, Bass noted that the Respondent was late to class, wasted time by marching the students to a film which was set up in a classroom in a separate building, provided no orientation or preview prior to showing the film, and conducted no discussion of the film after it had been shown. He further noted that the Respondent performed much of the project work himself, thereby limiting the hands-on experience that the students were in the class to receive. That same day, Bass observed the Respondent's manufacturing class for regular students, which viewed the same film as had been shown to the exceptional education students. The content of the film would have been acceptably pitched for both types of classes if Respondent had appropriately introduced the film and had led post-film discussions appropriate to each level, which he did not. Bass felt that once again a lot of time was wasted, there was scant review of the film's content, and there existed the same problems with diction and discourse by the Respondent. Bass concluded that the Respondent's teaching performance remained virtually unchanged from what it had been prior to the assistance review. Bass' March 27, 1985 Annual Teacher Evaluation for Respondent's 1984- 1985 school year resulted in a rating of "needs improvement" in 23 of the 39 "behaviors" evaluated on the form. Bass met with Respondent on March 28, 1985 to review the evaluation and discuss it with him. Before Bass could begin discussion of the evaluation, Respondent stated, "Let me make a long story short, Mr. Bass, I am not going to sign my evaluation even if we talk all week. You're 100 percent right on what you wrote, but I'm still not signing it." On more than six occasions, Thomas found the Respondent's students out of class when they were supposed to be in his room. On certain occasions Respondent locked them out. When the Respondent locked students out of his classroom, those students were free to roam the halls with the excuse that they had been locked out of their classroom. On one occasion, school staff members caught one of the Respondent's students committing a theft at a time when he was supposed to be in Respondent's class. Although the theft incident was not conclusively tied to a date Respondent locked students out of his classroom, Respondent was still responsible for indicating to the administration that the student was "cutting" and had not done so. On June 4, 1985, Bass learned that the Respondent was locking his students out of his classroom. Final examinations were being conducted at the time. The Respondent told Bass that he could not make the students stay in class without this procedure, which he had designed to catch students when a student still in the classroom tried to let those who had left the classroom back into the classroom from the outside. Respondent also told Bass he could not give an examination and control the students if the door were not locked. Respondent repeated this explanation from the stand at formal hearing as if his plan were designed to catch those who "cut" class, but Respondent also maintained it was a method of timing the number of minutes students remained out of class so that Respondent could tell their parents why he would not permit them ever to leave the room again, apparently even for reasons as mundane and urgent as using the bathroom. Such reasoning process is flawed and unreasonable, if not downright silly. The Respondent refused to sign the incident report resulting from this incident and further refused to discuss the incident report with Mr. Bass. As a vocational education teacher, Respondent was required to submit end of the year reports to Ms. Carter as a part of state and federal funding requirements. Ms. Carter had informed Respondent of the requirement that he prepare and submit the reports prior to leaving school. Respondent testified he submitted the required reports at the end of the 1984-1985 school year by placing them in the school office mail box of Ms. Wagner. Ms. Carter testified that she did not receive them. The problem with transmittal of the reports appears to be one that could have been resolved by Ms. Wagner or someone notifying the Respondent immediately by telephone that they had not been received. This was not done, although Ms. Carter and Dr. King followed up with written reproofs. Such an infraction under these circumstances will not support discipline of Respondent. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-1985 school year, dated March 27, 1985 and referenced above, was not satisfactory, but Respondent's contract was subsequently renewed for the 1985-1986 year. THE 1985-1986 SCHOOL YEAR On September 3, 1985, Howard LaPointe, then a staff associate in the Exceptional Education Program of the Indian River County School District, observed Respondent teaching exceptional students in his manufacturing class. Although school had begun on August 17, 1985, Respondent took his class on a tour of the other building on September 3, 1985. Mr. LaPointe observed numerous deficiencies during his observation and noted that the Respondent needed assistance in the areas of classroom management, instructional materials, orientation to class work, utilization of student notebooks, and competency based upon the curriculum guide. On September 13, 1985, the Respondent met in Principal Bass' office with Bass, LaPointe, Carolyn Sheppard (president of the teachers' union) and Dr. King to review LaPointe's observation conducted on September 3, 1985 and to discuss suggestions for Respondent's professional improvement. As Mr. LaPointe began to present his plan for providing assistance to the Respondent, Respondent became angry and upset. After a sharp exchange between LaPointe and Respondent, wherein LaPointe asked Respondent "What the hell do you expect the children to do?" or some similarly-phrased question, Respondent left the meeting and did not return. Bass and Dr. King walked down to the Respondent's office, a glass- enclosed room. They could see Respondent was in a highly emotional, agitated state. The Respondent had knocked his personal television set onto the floor. It was not demonstrated that Respondent damaged a projector or any other school property or that two obscenities uttered by Respondent were heard by anyone other than a fellow teacher, Mr. Humphrey, who had entered the enclosed room as a friend to calm down the Respondent. Had Bass and King not followed Respondent to his own office they would not have even observed his agitated state. Respondent was excused for the remainder of the school day after Mr. Humphrey calmed him down. Later that day, Superintendent Burns suspended the Respondent without pay. Respondent was subsequently terminated by the School Board for incompetence, misconduct, and gross insubordination. On December 12, 1985, Dr. King notified the Florida Department of Education that the Respondent had been dismissed from his position of employment. Dr. King recommended that the Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. Based upon Bass' observations and evaluations of the Respondent's teaching performance over a period of more than two years, Bass holds the professional opinion that the Respondent is an incompetent teacher. Bass would not recommend the Respondent for employment in Indian River County or any other school district. In Bass' professional opinion, students in the Respondent's regular classroom did not receive even a minimal educational experience and the exceptional students received only a minimal educational experience. No evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations of unprofessional conduct at Clemans Elementary School was offered and no such unprofessional conduct is found. No direct competent substantial evidence nor any corroborated hearsay supports the allegation that Respondent used profanity in the presence of students and no such conduct is found. Respondent's pre-1983-1984 school year evaluations are technically irrelevant to the charges at bar but were admitted to give Respondent every opportunity to "prove up" his allegations that his current problems arose from personal or personality conflicts with Bass and Thomas. Unfortunately for Respondent, these exhibits show some of his deficiencies are long-standing but were sporadic as opposed to forming a consistent pattern early on. Otherwise, these exhibits are too remote in time to have great weight. Respondent also defended, pursuant to Rule 6B-4.08(2), Florida Administrative Code, upon the premise that after a bombardment of evaluations and conferences he felt he was being harassed rather than given corrective assistance and that he was given too little time in which to make the adjustments required. Rule 613-4.08(2) requires Respondent's immediate supervisor to make all efforts possible to aid Respondent to correct the matter which caused his dismissal. Although this is a questionable defense when, as here, Petitioner and the School Board are not one and the same entity, some of Respondent's allegations have a mitigating effect. There is some merit to his allegations with regard to the timeframe and limited assistance provided but none as to the allegation of harassment. Respondent did unsuccessfully apply for transfer and volunteer to accept a custodial job at the same pay in order to avoid his problems with Bass and Thomas, but he could not demonstrate at formal hearing any reason other than his own attitude and teaching performance for Bass' and Thomas' poor evaluations and refusal to transfer him. Moreover, the consistency of the other observers' analyses belies any conspiracy or vendetta against Respondent on the part of Bass and Thomas. There is some evidence that Respondent made some minimal improvements in technique after assistance was provided by the professional reviewer, which assistance Mr. Bass characterized as the only significant remediation provided the Respondent. Upon his superiors' advice, Respondent also conferred with at least one other teacher in his field who came to his school. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent was authorized to attend two professional conferences and he did not, in fact, attend, but it is unclear from her testimony and the supporting documentary evidence whether federal grant monies were ever authorized for Respondent's attendance at either of these conferences. Mr. LaPointe's evidence that special assistance with regard to exceptional students was offered by him but rebuffed by Respondent is indicative of Respondent's poor attitude. There is evidence that equipment was repaired for Respondent and although not stated by any one witness in so many words, it may be inferred from the collective testimony of several witnesses that Respondent could have requested time off to observe other industrial arts classes and confer with other industrial arts teachers outside his own school but failed to do so. In light of Respondent's satisfactory rating in the 1983-1984 school year, the fact that significant efforts to assist Respondent did not commence until November 1984 (reviewer visit) and that internal assistance did not begin in earnest until the February 7, 1985 conference, I find Respondent had really only from February to March 1985 to avoid an initial unfavorable annual evaluation. From March 1985 to school's closing in June and part of August and September in the 1985-1986 school year was all the time permitted Respondent for remediation because he was dismissed in mid-September 1985. Even so, he showed some minimal improvement which has been considered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be suspended for three years with provision for reinstatement as provided by statute. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4101 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (FOF). Petitioner's Proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 5. 4-5 Covered in FOF 6. 6-8 Covered in FOF 7 but amplified to conform to the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 8. Covered in FOF 9. Accepted that there were such reports but rejected as set forth in FOF 41. Covered in FOF 10. Covered in FOF 11 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. 14-15. Covered in FOF 12 except as to the subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in FOF 25. Covered in FOF 26. 18-19. Covered in FOF 27. 20. Covered in FOF 29. 21-23. Covered and amplified in FOF 30 to conform to the record, but eliminating the legal argument from proposal 23. 24. Covered in FOF 31. The commentary about the presence of a secretary and Respondent's mood are rejected as immaterial in light of no charges of insubordination. Further, mild anger in the presence of the Principal's secretary is hardly likely to impair Respondent's effectiveness. 25-26. Covered, modified and amplified as necessary in FOF 33 to convey the full scope of the material facts of record. That which is cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary has been rejected. 27. Covered in FOF 36; what is rejected is subordinate and unnecessary. 28-29. Covered in FOF 39; what is rejected is cumulative. 30-31. Covered in FOF 13-14 and amplified to more accurately convey the evidence of record as a whole. Covered in FOF 16 but modified for clarity. Covered in FOF 18. Except for elimination of the cumulative, covered in FOF 17. Except as cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 19. Covered in FOF 19. 37-38. Covered and amplified in FOF 20 to more accurately reflect the evidence of record as a whole. 39-42. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 22. 43-46, and 49 Rejected as not supported by the direct, credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole. 47-48. Accepted that reports were written but rejected on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay, unsupported by direct credible competent substantial evidence in the record as a whole as covered in FOF 41. 50. Covered and amplified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole in FOF 32. See also FOF 33. 51-53. Except for the cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 28 and 42. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. All witnesses are entirely credible on this point and Respondent's testimony is not truly contrary to other testimony. The benefit of the doubt must be resolved in his favor in this penal procedure. 56-58. Rejected as stated as not supported by the credible competent substantial evidence of record as a whole which is set out in FOF 37. 59. Covered in FOF 38. 60-61. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 38. 62. Covered in FOF 38. 63-65. Rejected as irrelevant except as covered in FOF 42. Rejected as cumulative. See FOF 20, 21, 32 and 33. Accepted but covered as set forth in FOF 23 since the proposal does not constitute an ultimate, material fact. Rejected as legal argument except to the extent it is peripherally covered in FOF 42. Respondent's Proposed FOF: 1-3. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. 4. Rejected as stated in that it constitutes argument but the topic is covered in FOF 7, 21 and 42, as supported by the record as a whole. 5-8. Accepted but cumulative upon the acceptance of similar proposals by Petitioner. This proposal is not a sentence and is therefore rejected. Accepted that Respondent had the feelings and made the statement but rejected as stated as misleading of the record as a whole. See FOF 37. Except as covered in FOF 4, rejected as irrelevant, although true. Accepted but this goes to Respondent's overall incompetency and is not an ultimate material fact and therefore not adopted. See FOF 21. Rejected as some of these were not admitted in evidence and those in evidence do not support the proposal, neither does the record evidence as a whole. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles L. Hendley, Esquire 1500 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent and the Alternative Learning Center Respondent In 1974, at 22 years of age, Respondent earned his Bachelor of Science degree in social studies from Florida Memorial College, an historically black college in Miami. In his freshman year, he was named the Outstanding Freshman from Southwest Florida attending historically black colleges. At various times during his last three years of college, Respondent worked in inner-city ministries in St. Louis and New Orleans. For about five years following graduation, Florida Memorial College employed Respondent, first as Associate Director of Admissions and then as Director of Alumni-Church Relations, assistant basketball coach, head baseball coach, and head volleyball coach. After moving from Miami to Lee County, Respondent worked for a short time outside of education. At the start of the 1986- 87 school year, Respondent returned to education by accepting employment with the Lee County School District (District) as a social studies teacher at Cypress Lake High School, where he remained for two years. While at Cypress Lake High School, Respondent also served as head girls' basketball coach, head girls' track coach, assistant volleyball coach, and assistant baseball coach. While employed by the District, Respondent helped with the fathers' program at LAMP, which is an educational program operated by the District at the New Directions Center. The LAMP program provides high-school instruction for teenage mothers. Respondent also headed the District's first mentor program, which finds mentors, without regard to race, to encourage minority students to excel in an academic setting, such as in gifted and honors courses. In 1988, Respondent earned his Master of Science degree in educational leadership from Nova University. Then-Superintendent Engle named Respondent to serve as principal-on-assignment for the 1988-89 school year to recruit minority teachers for the District. Respondent was the second minority person assigned to an administrative position in the District. At the time, a federal court had entered a desegregation order against the District. In the ten years prior to Respondent's new assignment, the District had hired about a dozen minority teachers. In one summer, Respondent recruited 30 minority teachers. After completing his assignment in minority teacher recruitment, Respondent returned to Cape Coral High School as Dean of Students. He served in this position for the 1989-90 school year. Following the 1989-90 school year, Respondent was appointed the Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, in which capacity Respondent served for five years. When he assumed the job, he received a $5000 raise to about $40,000 annually. A coordinator is the lowest level of management in the District office. Coordinators are subordinate to assistant directors or, if none, directors. Directors are subordinate to assistant and associate superintendents, who are subordinate to the Superintendent. The Superintendent is appointed by the Lee County School Board. As Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments, Respondent monitored the district's desegregation efforts. Due to the nature of his responsibilities, Respondent, even though only a coordinator, had direct access to the Superintendent and School Board attorney. Working closely with then-Superintendent Adams, who became Respondent's mentor, Respondent helped redraw school- attendance zones to desegregate schools. Respondent also handled racially based complaints from staff, including teachers, and generally tried to assure that poorer schools received the same resources as those enjoyed by wealthier schools. Respondent became the focus of considerable controversy while Coordinator of Educational Equity and Reassignments. One day, his young daughter answered the phone at home and heard an unidentified caller threaten, "Your nigger father is a dead man." Shortly after the murder of Superintendent Adams, Petitioner, then serving as Interim Superintendent, informed Respondent that she was removing him from his coordinator position. She created a new position for Respondent as Director of Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received a raise from $48,000 to $55,000 annually and assumed his new duties in November 1994. Petitioner disclosed that she made the change based on concerns for Respondent's safety and complaints that she had received from the School Board and parents related to Respondent's rezoning decisions. Three months after Petitioner created Respondent's new position, she eliminated it and suggested that Respondent apply for other administrative positions with the District. Respondent and Petitioner discussed an opening at the New Directions Center. The New Directions Center occupies a three-year old facility owned and operated by the Lee County School Board. The New Directions Center comprises three separate programs: the LAMP program, the Academy, and the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). The Academy, which includes the Employment Skills Program, provides alternative education by offering its students different types of teaching strategies than are typically available at conventional schools. Academy students are not behaviorally much different from students attending regular schools in the District. Prior to the 1995-96 school year, each program at the New Directions Center had an assistant principal, and a supervisory principal was in charge of the entire New Directions Center. When she mentioned the opening at the ALC, Petitioner informed Respondent that she intended to appoint a separate principal for each of the three programs starting the 1995-96 school year. In May 1995, Petitioner appointed Respondent to serve as the new ALC Principal, starting July 1. As ALC Principal, Respondent was also the head District administrator at the juvenile detention center, Price Halfway House, and Lee County boot camp. At the time of assuming his new responsibilities, Respondent had served nine years in the Lee County School system: two years in the classroom, one year in administration at a school, over five years in administration involving minority matters at the District office, and less than one year in Adult Education and Dropout Prevention. Respondent received no training in preparation for his new assignment as a school principal. As of February 19, 1996, Respondent's District personnel file contained nothing negative, aside from some isolated suggestions recorded on classroom observation sheets. This was the file that Respondent and his attorney examined after giving the District three days' notice of their intent to examine and copy Respondent's personnel file. Discussed below is Petitioner's contention that two missing items should have been included in the file. Respondent's evaluation for his first year of teaching notes: "Excellent start as a beginning teacher in Lee County." This 1987 evaluation states: "Outstanding teacher. Should be considered for advancement to administration as soon as possible." The 1988 evaluation reports: "Excellent year-- Promoted to dean of students, Cape Coral H.S." The first administrative evaluation of Respondent is in 1989 and covers his work in minority-teacher recruitment. The 1989 evaluation states that Respondent is "an asset to our team." The 1990 evaluation, which addresses Respondent's year as Dean of Students, reports: "Charles has demonstrated his concern for young people and has spent many hours above and beyond the call of duty working with and for kids." For the first year in which Respondent was responsible for desegregation efforts, the 1991 evaluation notes that Respondent has only partially achieved a goal--namely, learning desegregation issues. However, the 1991 evaluation, which was prepared by Dr. Mary Nell Gunter, states: "Charles Daily [sic] demonstrates talent and skill in dealing with people. He is eager to do a good job and I appreciate his professional outlook." A memorandum from Dr. Gunter commends Respondent for his "positive attitude" and work in specific programs. The memorandum suggests, though, that Respondent needs to develop his skills in "facilitative leadership," which he demonstrates in "many instances," but perhaps insufficiently when dealing with "principals and school-based people." Respondent's evaluation for the 1991-92 school year is missing from Respondent Exhibit 13, which is his District personnel file. The missing evaluation apparently was completed with no remarkable comments. Respondent's evaluation for the 1992-93 school year is noteworthy because it was prepared by Petitioner, who was not yet Superintendent. This 1993 evaluation finds that Respondent has fully achieved all of his goals, one of which is: To establish effective communication to the public that would assist in dealing with the increasing cultural, demographic and social change effecting [sic] our students and community. Petitioner's narrative comments on the 1993 evaluation are: Charles Dailey is an extremely valued and important member of the Division of Administrative Operations. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership during the Desegregation process. He is a role model for every administrator in his work ethic, committment [sic], teamwork and educational values. Petitioner found that Respondent reached an effective level of performance (the only satisfactory rating offered on the evaluation form) in all categories. Categories include judgment issues, including making good decisions based on law and policy, and sensitivity issues, including tact, effective dealing with people over emotional issues, exhibiting a positive professional attitude, and perceiving the needs and concerns of other persons. Petitioner concluded the 1993 evaluation as follows: Charles must work under stress everyday in his office due to our desegregation process. He has handled this in an outstanding manner. The evaluation for the 1993-94 school year should have been performed by Dr. James Browder, who is now principal of Cypress Lake High School. Dr. Adams was murdered on February 7, 1994. Another administrator was responsible for Respondent's evaluation until April or May of 1994. Given the understandable disruption resulting from the sudden death of Dr. Adams and the administration reorganization that followed, Respondent's evaluation for the 1993-94 school year was never prepared. However, Dr. Browder testified that he had perceived no problems with Respondent of sufficient seriousness to document in an evaluation. The evaluation for the 1994-95 school year should have been performed by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Mary Santini. She assumed that position in January 1995 and may have felt unable to evaluate Respondent by the time the evaluations are due in May. Respondent has been recognized repeatedly in the educational community. The past three years, Respondent was a finalist for the Ida S. Baker award, which is given to the outstanding minority educator in Florida. Respondent was named in 1995 the administrator of the year for the southeastern United States by the Southeast Desegregation Assistance Center. During this period, Respondent has been serving as a consultant and expert witness in the Rockford (IL) School District desegregation case. The ALC In general, the ALC is the District's last-chance school for students whose disciplinary problems have resulted in their removal from their geographical schools. ALC students are the most difficult to manage in the District. Nearly all ALC students are enrolled in the ALC as an alternative to expulsion from the Lee County School System. A few students are assigned to the ALC through the juvenile justice system. Almost all of the ALC students have had serious problems with criminal activity, seriously disruptive behavior in school, and school attendance. At any given time, roughly 10-20 students attending the ALC have been convicted of felonies. On a cumulative basis for the 1995-96 school year, excluding exceptional student education (ESE) students, 80 students enrolled in the ALC sometime during the 1995-96 school year were guilty of felonies, 91 were guilty of the possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia, 29 were guilty of armed burglary or grand theft, 36 were guilty of assault or battery against a teacher or administrator, 68 were guilty of fighting with other students, 38 were guilty of possession of weapons, and numerous others were guilty of other offenses ranging from "sexual misconduct" (7) to "peeing in a bottle" (1). (Some of these students were guilty of more than one offense, and some students entered the ALC more than once during the school year, so their offenses would be counted more than once in each category.) Prior to the 1995-96 school year, the Supervisory Principal of the New Directions Center was Jeananne Folaros. The ALC Assistant Principal was Richard Hagy. The LAMP Assistant Principal was Carolyn McCollum. And the Academy Assistant Principal was John Wortham. For the 1995-96 school year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham retained their prior positions except they became principals, and Mr. Hagy and Ms. Folaros were reassigned. Respondent and the ALC When Respondent arrived at the ALC, student behavior and academics were both in need of improvement. Perhaps the most dramatic indicator of the situation was that in the prior school year Mr. Hagy had twice required hospital treatment for injuries he had received from being struck by ALC students. The school was the scene of frequent fights with students wandering in the halls and often in possession of drugs, making it hard for motivated students to work. In an effort to reduce the number of suspensions, the ALC had retained some extremely disruptive students, who sometimes threatened even the teachers. Frightened by these students, some teachers had resorted to a policy of appeasement, allowing difficult students to sleep or play cards in the classroom with academic activity going on around them, or sending these students to a separate timeout room, where they slept and played cards without the distraction of academic activity going on around them. When Respondent was first appointed as ALC Principal, he spoke with middle- and high-school principals and learned of their concerns that the ALC was a "revolving-door" program. They said that the ALC disrupted regular academic programs at their schools and inadequately served the needs of the students assigned to the ALC. District principals and ALC teachers and students reported that the ALC offered a poor educational program where students could easily avoid academic challenge. One of Respondent's first moves was to select Beth Smith as the assistant principal for the ALC. Respondent recognized that their strengths and weaknesses were complementary. She was a curriculum specialist, and he was an effective disciplinarian. After hiring Ms. Smith, Respondent formed a curriculum team consisting of her, a guidance counselor, a school psychologist, and a peer-counseling teacher to address curriculum changes. Respondent reimplemented the 45 good-day policy. This policy meant that the ALC would not return a student to his geographical school until he had 45 days of punctual attendance, good behavior, and successful academics. Respondent developed and enforced a dress code, prohibited sleeping and card games in class, and required teachers to stiffen their academic requirements. Respondent's disciplinary plan eliminated the separate timeout room, where misbehaving students had enjoyed freedom from academics. Respondent instead introduced a multi-step intervention system where the teacher first warned the misbehaving student in the classroom, then warned the student in the hallway, then placed the student in timeout in the classroom, and then sent him to Respondent, who would warn the student, assign cafeteria duty, or suspend him, depending on the seriousness of the offense. In all senses of the word, Respondent was a "hands-on" principal. Sondra Saldana, an ALC guidance counselor, best described Respondent's style when she testified that he meets students where they are. Undoubtedly, Respondent models good behavior in numerous ways. But he does not stop there. With passionate intensity, Respondent readily reveals his love and expectations for each student and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each student's behavior. Respondent is direct and frank, not oblique or diplomatic. He demands the respect of all of his students, and he earns the respect of nearly all of them because they see that he cares about them in a vital and effective way. Many of the ALC students probably would not have responded to Respondent's disciplinary innovations without clear evidence of Respondent's belief in their academic potential. More than anything else, Respondent wanted "to keep turning on lights for students," according to his favorite expression. Refusing to allow ALC students to think of themselves or be treated like academic or cultural outcasts, Respondent made the ALC more like a regular school, not so that he could have the experience of running a regular school, but so that the ALC students could have the experience of attending and succeeding at a regular school. In giving ALC students more positive opportunities than they had had in the past, Respondent introduced to the ALC student assemblies, a literary magazine, school plays, and other activities typical of regular schools. Respondent ordered the physical education teacher to make the ALC students play sports besides basketball, just like the physical education students were doing at the regular schools. (After hearing the concerns of the physical education teacher about placing bats in the hands of certain students, Respondent agreed to drop softball.) Respondent personally conducted entrance interviews, so he could explain the rules and purpose of the ALC to each new student and any parents or guardians accompanying him. Respondent made the exit process--merely an exercise in paperwork in prior years--an experience that would bring some closure to the ALC experience and prepare the student for a more successful reentry into his geographical school. There is no doubt that Respondent was markedly successful in improving the atmosphere at the ALC. Respondent's immediate supervisor, Herbert Wiseman, the District Director of Secondary Operations, twice during the fall of 1995 complimented Respondent on how well run the ALC was. The latter compliment took place on December 15, 1995, when Mr. Wiseman, with whom Respondent had a good relationship, told Respondent that he was running the ALC well. Mariner High School Principal Michael McNerney described in detail a visit he made to the ALC in November 1995. He was greeted quickly and professionally at the office, rather than allowed merely to walk into the school. Respondent took him to 8-10 classrooms where Respondent and students spoke freely. Respondent knew each of his students and which of them were from Mariner High School. He even knew when each student was due to return to his geographical high school. Jill Culligan, an ALC teacher who was disaffected with Respondent, noted the positive changes in writing on December 5, 1995: Under [Respondent's] system of discipline interventions and sensitivity to individual student needs, the students appear to be exhibiting the better behavior expected of them. Fights are no longer tolerated. More opportunities for assemblies are getting them ready for re-entry into the regular schools. But Respondent always balanced his academic innovations with disciplinary innovations, recognizing that behavior and academic achievement among ALC students are inextricably linked. Respondent personally led the effort to restore and maintain order at the ALC. It was a considerable, ongoing effort, made more difficult by the fact that the most troublesome students were no longer warehoused in the timeout room or banished from school by suspension. A key element of Respondent's relationship with the most difficult of these most difficult students is that he literally was not afraid to touch a student. Respondent was unafraid to place an arm around such students and hug them close to his body. The hug conveyed affection and physical constraint. While holding the child firmly, Respondent would then typically say that he had to calm down. In many instances, this approach was successful; in some instances--disproportionately represented in the next section--this approach was not. There were always clear limits to Respondent's disciplinary efforts. As noted below, he did not believe in striking students, and never did so except one time at the behest of a parent, who sought to avoid the more burdensome punishment of a suspension. Respondent scrupulously tried to get all significant information before taking any disciplinary action. Though a strong believer in discipline, Respondent was never inflexible. To the contrary, it appears he was always willing to fashion the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances--such as pushups or cafeteria duty--and was often willing to modify a penalty upon request of a parent or guardian or even the student himself. During Respondent's tenure, which ended with his suspension on January 11, 1996, there was a fight every three weeks among students. After his suspension, there was a fight everyday. During Respondent's tenure, the police were present at school every other week. After his suspension, the police were present every other day. Despite Respondent's success at the ALC, he encountered some resistance and engendered some resentment among staff. Clearly, disgruntled staff was the source of many of Respondent's problems, causing management problems at school and, more importantly, conveying misinformation to the District office. In general, at least two-thirds of the ALC staff supported Respondent even after he was suspended. Some staffmembers were neutral. Among staffmembers vocally opposed to Respondent, some were doubtlessly put off by Respondent's assertive personality. But there were other reasons for the vocal disaffection of some staffmembers, and some of these reasons have a material bearing on the credibility of these persons as witnesses and the weight accorded their testimony. In some cases, the source of staff disaffection may have been professional, such as when Respondent selected Ms. Smith over Jim Nassiff, an ALC teacher, for the position of assistant principal. Mr. Nassiff was unhappy with Respondent for choosing Ms. Smith over him. Most disaffected staffmembers had job-performance problems, which were exacerbated by the demands that Respondent placed upon them in terms of academics and discipline. Teachers in this category included Kenneth Vitale, Pamela Minton, Cheryl Gruenefeld, and Ms. Culligan. To varying degrees, teachers in this category manifested an unwillingness or inability to adapt to the changes implemented by Respondent. The sources of disaffection of Mr. Vitale and Ms. Culligan are described in connection with incidents involving them. However, two staffmembers were involved in a number of incidents. Lisa Krucher, a security guard, was notable for the extent of her dissatisfaction with Respondent and her inability to perform her job. She defied Respondent's efforts to ban smoking from the ALC building. She was unable to break up fights and lax in enforcing discipline. She eventually became the eyes and ears of Petitioner by daily reporting incidents to Mr. Wortham, who passed them on to Dr. Santini. Her job-related deficiencies were such that--despite her loyalty--Ms. Krucher was transferred to the Academy after Respondent's suspension. Ms. Smith offered a more balanced perspective on Respondent than did Ms. Krucher, and the source of Ms. Smith's disaffection with Respondent is more professional. Previously a guidance counselor in a middle school and dropout prevention program, Ms. Smith is an articulate exponent of the modern disciplinary theories of positive reinforcement and behavior modification. She deemphasizes more traditional, coercive methods of discipline, such as punishment for wrongs-- which of course awaits those ALC students who, having already failed to take their behavioral cues in the setting of the regular schools, continue misbehaving until they encounter the criminal justice system. Respondent does not advocate the more traditional, coercive disciplinary method of punishment for wrongs to the exclusion of more modern techniques of behavior modification. However, his more intense style of personal involvement with misbehaving students bore little resemblance to Ms. Smith's more restrained style. Ms. Smith was disturbed by her perception of how Respondent handled certain misbehaving ALC students. The record is less clear in revealing her methods of modifying the behavior of such students. In any event, her reactions to the misbehavior and Respondent's attempts to correct it were entirely sincere. She was frustrated to the point of tears at times, believing at times that students who continued to misbehave simply had not been exposed to sufficient positive reinforcement. The problem is that Ms. Smith lacked experience with the kinds of students who can be found at the ALC. She was still developing effective means of handling the most dangerous and disruptive of these students when Respondent was suspended. At that time, Ms. Smith still had nothing approaching Respondent's experience in dealing with young persons who, with little if any warning or provocation, explode into a violent frenzy, seriously injuring anyone in their immediate vicinity. Following Respondent's suspension, Petitioner appointed Ms. Smith as Acting ALC Principal. On February 20, 1996, Petitioner replaced Ms. Smith with Mr. Hagy as Acting ALC Principal. Respondent and Students Spring 1995 Visits to ALC: Paragraphs 33 and 35 At the urging of Petitioner, Respondent visited the ALC shortly after Petitioner named him the new principal. He visited the school three times in the spring of 1995 before assuming his duties there on July 1, 1995. On his first visit, Respondent met briefly with Mr. Hagy and discussed how the school operates. On this visit, Respondent saw students loitering in the halls and cursing loudly. Respondent saw the timeout room, where staff had hung plastic to cover the holes that students had punched in the walls. Respondent saw students were sleeping rather than studying. Respondent and Mr. Hagy came across a student who was walking out of the class during the school day very upset, using abusive language. Mr. Hagy asked him to stop, but he ignored Mr. Hagy and walked out. In another class, taught by James Nassiff, Respondent found the class watching an entertainment movie. Mr. Hagy escorted Respondent into several classrooms. These visits were brief. Respondent later made a second visit, without Mr. Hagy, to observe the classes in session. These visits were somewhat longer. In each classroom during the second visit, Respondent introduced himself as the new ALC principal. He warned the students that things would be changing. He promised that he would suspend any student who talked back to a teacher, swore, or fought. Respondent ordered the students not to call male teachers "man" and female teachers "woman"; teachers would be called "Mr." and "Mrs." Respondent told the students that he would not tolerate sleeping or card playing in class. In a lighter tone, Respondent added that the students should tell their friends and family that there was a new sheriff in town and the ALC was going to be about education. Respondent then flashed his badge. The badge is a small shiny badge that designates Respondent as an Honorary Deputy Sheriff for the term of Sheriff McDougal, who remains in office. Respondent understands that the badge confers on him no special power to arrest persons. He has never tried to arrest anyone using the badge, and he has never displayed the badge on the occasions that he has actually summoned law enforcement officers. In Ms. Gruenefeld's class, Respondent found students sleeping. He approached one student who had his head down on the desk and did not look up when Respondent entered the room. Respondent told him to look at Respondent when he was speaking, or Respondent would suspend the student. Ms. Gruenefeld tried to justify the student's behavior on the grounds that he was a good student and had been working very hard. She believed that the student, who was Hispanic, did not engage in eye contact for cultural reasons. Nothing in the record supports the assertion that Hispanics disfavor eye contact. Absent an undisclosed medical condition, the student should have been able to raise his head off the desk and make eye contact with the new principal, who had entered the classroom to introduce himself to the students. There is no indication that Respondent's first or second visits to the ALC destroyed any instructional momentum in the classrooms. Obviously, the students were off-task for the time that Respondent was in the classroom, in most cases due to Respondent's presence. However, the students did not remain off-task for long and soon returned to whatever they were doing before Respondent entered the classroom. At most, Respondent's comments about changes at the ALC might have caused some harmless confusion among those students who were about to be returned to their geographical schools. There is no evidence that students were intimidated by Respondent's announcement or his display of a badge. Some students laughed after Respondent's announcement. Some responded more seriously, wanting to know if he were really going to be the new principal. In general, the students listened thoughtfully to Respondent's statement. Respondent made a third visit to meet with the faculty at the request of an ALC guidance counselor, who had called Respondent and told him that the faculty wanted to meet him. In this meeting, Respondent repeated the ground rules that he had given the students a few days earlier. Respondent invited each teacher to prepare a wish list for the ALC and a list of any concerns that he or she may have. Ending a positive meeting, Respondent introduced the teachers to his favorite expression, "We need to turn lights on for kids." Following Respondent's visits, Ms. Folaros telephoned Respondent and asked him what had taken place. He explained that he wanted to meet the students at that time because summer school would start before he assumed the role of principal. Respondent added that he wanted the students whom he met to tell other students that he would not tolerate students sleeping and misbehaving, as they had been doing in the past. Other Incidents of Flashing the Badge: Paragraph 33 In September or October, 1995, M. P. enrolled at the ALC. M. P. is a 14 year-old ninth grader, who started the year at Lehigh High School. M. P. was sent to the ALC after he urinated in the middle of class into a glue bottle because his teacher had refused him permission to use the bathroom. M. P. was accompanied by his mother and sister on the day that he enrolled--a process that took about 20 minutes. During the entrance interview, Respondent informed M.P. of the rules of the school. They discussed the dress code, the prohibition of drugs on campus, and M. P.'s misbehavior at Lehigh High School. During the conversation, Respondent flashed his badge and warned M. P. not to do anything wrong. M. P. testified that he was scared at the sight of the badge. This testimony is discredited. It takes more than a badge to frighten M. P.. M. P.'s mother saw Respondent flash the badge, and she decided, based on this meeting, that Respondent would be a good role model for her son. Respondent flashed the badge on other occasions. One time, four middle-school girls assaulted another student in the cafeteria. They ignored Respondent when he tried to talk to them, so he flashed the badge and warned them that he could have them arrested. They took him more seriously and listened after that. Another time, Respondent displayed the badge to a boy who was misbehaving in Respondent's office. Again, Respondent warned that he could have the student arrested. Respondent displayed the badge several other times and warned misbehaving students that he could have them arrested. Some of the students took him seriously; others did not. The ability of Respondent to have students arrested did not depend on his possession of the badge, and ALC students understood that. Flashing the badge unlikely intimidated anyone. M. P.'s Other Incident: Paragraph 29 After the entrance interview, M. P.'s mother spoke privately with Respondent about M. P. She described him as emotionally troubled over her recent divorce. She warned that he was quick to anger and especially intolerant of females because he blamed the divorce on his mother. He also resented females because of a gender issue in the family and the teacher who had refused him permission to go to the bathroom at Lehigh High School was a female. While in April Pepin's class, M. P. walked out of the classroom without permission. Ms. Pepin sent him to Ms. Smith's office. Talking to Ms. Smith, M. P. denied that he had left the classroom without permission and gave Ms. Smith trouble. Ms. Smith determined that he had misbehaved in Ms. Pepin's class, decided to suspend M. P. for one day, and called M. P.'s mother. M. P.'s mother asked Ms. Smith to have Respondent reinforce the point with M. P. Ms. Smith preceded M. P. to Respondent's office and explained the situation to Respondent, stating that M. P.'s mother wanted Respondent to talk to her son and that Ms. Smith was having trouble dealing with him. Respondent summoned M.P. into the office, leaned over his desk toward M. P., and raised his voice in an authoritative manner. Respondent warned M. P. that he could not act up at Respondent's school and that, if Ms. Smith told him something, it was like Respondent telling him something. M. P. elected not to listen to Respondent either and tried to walk out of his office. When he turned to walk around the chair, Respondent stopped him by grabbing his arm. Respondent was worried that he might be going after Ms. Smith. Respondent was also intent on not allowing M. P. to disobey Ms. Smith and Respondent by coming and going as he pleased, especially after his mother had asked repeatedly for Respondent's help in dealing with her son. After grabbing M.P.'s arm, Respondent told him to go up against the wall for a search, and, when he did not do so, forced him up against the wall. When Respondent tried to pat down M. P. for weapons, M.P. lost his composure and began to fight with Respondent. M.P. brought his arms down hard on Respondent and struck him. Respondent wrestled M. P. down to the floor and shouted for someone to call the police. Arriving a few minutes later, the police officers had to bind M.P. by the ankles and drag him to the police car, where he tried to kick out the car window. M. P.'s mother then had M. P. admitted to Charter Glades Hospital, a psychiatric treatment facility. M. P. remained hospitalized for ten days and remained on homebound instruction for two months. Charter Glades treated M. P. for an anger disorder. M. P.'s mother blames Respondent for M. P.'s hospitalization. She is understandably worried about her son, but the evidence does not in any way suggest that Respondent initiated, and the greater weight of the evidence does not prove that Respondent exacerbated or unreasonably triggered, M. P.'s obvious behavior disorder, which had manifested itself before his assignment to the ALC. Ms. Smith felt that Respondent overreacted to the situation, but she was unaware of the details or extent of M.P.'s behavior disorder prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, Respondent was justified in reacting quickly to prevent M. P. from leaving the office and precluding the possibility that the student might strike Ms. Smith. Pushups: Paragraphs 20 and 21 Respondent sometimes gave the option of pushups to male students whose misbehavior otherwise warranted suspension. (For female and other male students, Respondent would sometimes offer cafeteria duty.) On at least two occasions, students chose to do the pushups. Respondent demanded 50 pushups and sometimes called out the count himself, starting fast and ending slow. If a student could not do 50 pushups, Respondent allowed him to do as many as he could; in no event would Respondent suspend him for failing to reach 50. On one occasion, three students were doing their pushups in Respondent's office when a faculty meeting was about to start. The teachers were supportive of the students, cheering them on. When finished, the students, taking the matter in good humor, thanked Respondent for not suspending them. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the students choosing to do pushups were humiliated, injured, or exposed to a risk of injury. Presumably, as alleged by Petitioner, their arms shook and, for the white boys, their faces reddened. These things happen with pushups. Spankings: Paragraphs 18 and 19 There were two student spankings during the fall of 1995. One of them took place in October 1995 and involved O. B., who is 13 years old. O. B. lied to Respondent about not being involved in a fight. Based on O. B.'s word, Respondent was about to suspend another boy. After discovering the truth, Respondent went down to O.B.'s classroom and found the class watching a movie. Respondent said, loud enough for the teacher, Mr. Vitale, and other students to hear, "Son, you've lied to me. You've lied to me." O. B. answered, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about." Respondent then grasped O. B. firmly by the back of the neck and walked him down to Respondent's office. In the office, Respondent suspended O. for five days, called O. B.'s father (his biological grandfather who had adopted O. B.), and told him that he needed to pick up his son. O. B.'s classmates already knew that O. B. had lied about the incident. O. B. was not embarrassed by the manner in which Respondent removed him from class, nor was he hurt by the grasp of Respondent. When O. B.'s father arrived, he said to Respondent that O. B. had just been suspended and had been out of school more than he had been in. The father asked Respondent if there were another alternative, like a spanking, and suggested that Respondent spank the child. Respondent said he did not like to spank students. The father asked if he could, in order to avoid another suspension. Respondent said that was acceptable to him, so the father took his belt and applied it to O. B.'s buttocks five or six times. O. B. cried a little, so Respondent suggested that the father take him home for the rest of the day, rather than return to the classroom after having cried. The father did that. Respondent, O. B., and O. B.'s father were the only persons present during the spanking. The blinds were drawn in Respondent's office during the spanking. The other spanking involved J. N., who is also 13 years old. One day, J. N. repeatedly misbehaved. His teacher, Mr. Nassiff, talked to him several times without effect. J. N. got angry at another student and was about to get into a fight. Another teacher told him to be quiet and he refused. School Resource Officer Fred Jackson and Ms. Krucher also intervened, but failed to calm J. N. J. N. demanded to talk to Respondent. After a brief discussion, Respondent said that he was going to have to suspend J. N. if he misbehaved again that day. Respondent allowed J. N. to return to his class. J. N. returned to class and immediately caused trouble by getting into an argument with another student. Mr. Nassiff sent him back to the office. Respondent called J. N.'s mother and said that he was being suspended. J. N.'s mother asked Respondent to spank her child instead. She explained that she could not afford to arrange for someone to care for J. N. while he was out of school. He had just finished a suspension two or three weeks earlier, and his mother lacked the funds to hire another babysitter. After expressing some reluctance, Respondent agreed to the spanking, but required J. N.'s mother to come to the office to serve as the witness. She did, and Respondent, behind closed blinds and a closed door, hit J. N. six times with a belt on the buttocks. The spanking did not hurt and J. N. did not cry out. Lee County School Board Policy 5.16 addresses corporal punishment as follows: Subject to the provisions of law, if a teacher or school administrator feels that corporal punishment is necessary, at least the following procedures shall be followed: Reasonable alternatives have been used and documented. Written permission has been obtained from the student's parent or guardian at the beginning of each school year, and a call to the parent or guardian for each specific incident involved prior to using corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment shall be approved by the principal or designee before it is used. The use of corporal punishment shall be administered only in the presence of the principal, another administrator, or a teacher. The principal, other administrator, or teacher shall, in the presence of the student, be informed of the reason for the punishment before it is administered. A principal, or designee who has administered corporal punishment shall, upon request, provide the student's parent or guardian with written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name of the administrator or teacher who was present. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the O. B. spanking because O. B.'s father, not an employee of the District, spanked the child. Policy 5.16 is inapplicable to the J. N. spanking because--consistent with his disciplinary philosophy--Respondent never determined that corporal punishment was necessary. Such a determination is the precondition stated in the flush language of Policy 5.16 for the remaining conditions to apply. Respondent had determined to suspend J. N. Policy 5.16 governs spankings initiated by District employees, not by parents. Respondent merely acceded to the mother's requests that he substitute for suspension the lesser punishment of a mild spanking and that Respondent perform the spanking for her, in her presence--in effect as her agent and not an agent of the School Board. Violation of Dress Code: Paragraph 31 In September 1995, Respondent noticed an unidentified female student exiting a school bus on her way to class at the ALC. She was wearing a top that exposed her midriff, in violation of the ALC dress code. In the presence of District Transportation Coordinator Janet Harris, Respondent told the girl, "Get your ass into my office and call your mother. We don't allow those kinds of tops." Petitioner did not call the improperly clad student as a witness. There was no sexual content to Respondent's ill- chosen word, voiced in the presence of a female employee of the School Board who was a stranger to Respondent. Ms. Harris was not so startled by the comment as to report it at the time to anyone. She first mentioned it the next month to Mr. Wortham. Absent additional proof of the circumstances surrounding Respondent's isolated remark, including the student's reaction, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's momentary lapse disparaged and embarrassed the student. C. L. Incident: Paragraph 22 C. L. was a 200-pound female student at the ALC with a history of violent outbursts where she would leave school and not return home for a couple of days. C. L.'s mother asked Respondent, when he became principal, not to allow C. L. to continue to leave school whenever she wanted. Previously, if she were resolved to leave school, no one would try to stop her. One day at school in September or October 1995, C. L. was out of control, trying to leave the school. Gerald Gilmore, a security guard, was trying to stop her when Respondent approached. Respondent took one of C. L.'s arms, and she suddenly dropped on him. Respondent and Mr. Gilmore each took an arm and walked her to the office, talking to her the whole way in an attempt to calm her. Respondent summoned Officer Jackson to help calm C. L. In the office, Respondent and Mr. Gilmore placed C. L. in a chair. Each time she popped out of the chair, they returned her to the chair. Eventually, C. L. calmed down, and they let her return to class. D. C. Incident: Paragraph 26 One morning in October 1995, Respondent saw D.C. smoking marijuana off-campus before school. When D. C. entered the school, Respondent asked him to come down to the office. D. C. was belligerent. Respondent placed his right arm around the back of the D. C., who was about Respondent's height, and grabbed his right arm, while holding his left arm close to the boy's side. Respondent then walked D.C. down the hall, side-by-side, to the office. Respondent frequently used this hold on students who were noncompliant. It does not hurt the student, but gives Respondent control over the student's movements. In particular, Respondent can sense immediately if a student is going for a weapon. Respondent's use of this hold and his readiness to search students (which is also part of his effort to keep drugs off campus) are prompted by Respondent's justified concerns for the safety of students and staff. The ALC has no metal detector and weapons are a constant worry. In the fall of 1995, Respondent found one student at school carrying a .25 caliber pistol with 18 rounds of ammunition in it. Once in the office, D. C. voluntarily leaned against the wall in Respondent's office so Respondent could search him with an electronic beeper. Respondent did not find any marijuana, but found a tobacco cigarette with half of the tobacco removed from the cigarette. Students smoking marijuana often removed part of the tobacco from a tobacco cigarette and replaced it with marijuana to avoid detection. Respondent suspended D. C. from school and contacted D.C.'s probation officer. D. C. subsequently violated the conditions of his probation and is now missing. ESE Student and Housing Project: Paragraph 32 In November 1995, Respondent spoke to an unidentified female student who was repeatedly being suspended for disciplinary reasons. The student lived in a public housing project. Respondent warned the student that, if she continued to get suspended, stay home, and cause trouble around the project during school hours, she and her mother could be evicted from the project. The student calmed down and behaved appropriately after that. Respondent was a commissioner of public housing for the City of Fort Myers at the time. He understood the rules of the housing projects, which permit the eviction of tenants whose unsupervised school-age children cause trouble in a project during school hours. Slightly Built Child: Paragraph 25 Petitioner presented no significant evidence on this allegation. It probably refers to another incident, such as the S. P. incident discussed below. M. B. Incident: Paragraph 28 In November 1995, M. B. was involved in a fight in the classroom. Respondent gave him the option of a suspension or working in the cafeteria, where he would clean up trays and take out the trash. He chose cafeteria duty. Shortly after arriving in the cafeteria, M. B. so infuriated the cafeteria manager that he called Respondent and told him that M. B. was the most arrogant boy he had ever seen, and he did not want the student back in the cafeteria again. Respondent left his office to retrieve M. B. and found him walking toward the office. Respondent said, "Son, come here." M. B. approached Respondent, who asked him what was his problem. M. B. said that he refused to empty any "God damned" trash. Respondent placed his arm around M. B.'s back and escorted him to the office. M. B. wanted to go straight home, and Respondent would not allow him. Respondent asked him to lean against the wall so Respondent could check him for weapons and drugs. M. B. did so. Respondent then called M. B.'s grandmother and warned her that, if M. B. continued to fight, he could be expelled for two years. She asked him not to suspend him. Respondent agreed not to suspend him, and M.B. completed the school day without further incident. L. S. P. Incident: Paragraph 23 S. P. is a 12 year-old male. He is about five feet one inch tall and is slightly built. He fights constantly. S.P. was sent to the ALC last year for fighting and insubordination. He was transferred from the ALC to his geographical school last Christmas, but, by the time of the final hearing in the present case four months later, he was back at the ALC. On the day of his testimony, S. P. had a black eye from fighting. On his first day at the ALC, S. P. got into a fight. He had not even reached his classroom when he started fighting with another student while still in the office. Respondent saw the fight and put his arm around the child's back, grasped the student's right arm, and hugged the boy close to Respondent. Respondent tried to calm him, warning that he did not want to have to suspend S. P. before he was even enrolled. S. P. tried to escape Respondent's grasp, but Respondent would not release him until S. P. said that Respondent was choking him. Respondent released him then, even though he was not choking the student. When S. P. remained noncompliant, Respondent grasped him again in the same manner as before. Respondent warned S. P., as he hugged him close to Respondent, "Son, you can't continue to fight. You're going to force me to suspend you." However, S. P. swore at Respondent, who replied that S. P. was suspended for the day. After telling S. P. that he was suspended, Respondent walked S. P. to the bench outside Respondent's office and sat him down. S. P. was upset and, after Respondent walked away, began crying. M. T. R. Incident: Paragraph 27 J. B. is an 18 year-old female who attended the ALC in the fall of 1995. From the third day of her attendance at the ALC through the remainder of the fall term, she was sexually harassed and physically threatened by T. R., who is another student at the ALC. On three occasions, J. B. complained of the harassment and threats, including actual touching, to Ms. Krucher, who did nothing about J. B.'s complaints. The first two complaints were early in the fall term and the last complaint was in January 1996. The day after her last complaint to Ms. Krucher had resulted in no action, J. B. complained directly to Respondent. After interviewing J. B., Respondent sent her back to class and summoned T. R. from his class. Terry Smith, a security guard, escorted T. R. to the office. Respondent told T. R. that he should not talk to or look at J. B. If he saw her walking down the hall, he should go in a different direction. Above all, T. R. was not to touch her anymore. T. R. denied any knowledge of who J. B. was. Respondent sent for J. B., who came to Respondent's office and stood in the doorway. When T. R. was told this is who was complaining about him, he jumped up, screaming to J. B., "What the hell are you doing telling people I did this?" He then lunged toward a visibly frightened J. B. Ms. Krucher pushed J. B. safely out of the doorway and escorted her back to the classroom. Respondent got to T. R. before he got to J. B. and pinned him against the wall. T. R. struggled, hitting Respondent while he tried to control T. R.'s arms. Mr. Smith assisted Respondent, who had T. R.'s upper body, by grabbing T. R.'s legs, and the two men wrestled T. R. to the floor. Ms. Krucher returned, and Respondent told her to call the school resource officer, so T. R. could be removed from the campus. In the meantime, Respondent and Mr. Smith tried to calm T. R. by talking quietly to him. Before the school resource officer arrived, T. R. calmed down and pleaded with Respondent not to send him to jail. T. R.'s girlfriend was pregnant, and he had criminal sex abuse charges pending. Respondent agreed to suspend T. R. for the rest of the day and not have him arrested. Respondent and Teachers Culligan Incident: Paragraph 41 At a faculty meeting early in the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan addressed Respondent's decision to eliminate the timeout room. Ms. Culligan endorsed the previous policy where a teacher sent a student to the timeout room for a short period the first time, a longer period the second time, and the remainder of the day the third time on the same day. She said that she typically would not have to send a student back a second or third time. Respondent answered that that was not what the records showed. He implied that teachers had routinely sent students to the timeout room for long periods of time. He did not state that Ms. Culligan had resorted to the timeout room more than did the rest of the teachers, although she likely had. Respondent had considerable difficulty with Ms. Culligan. At the start of the 1995-96 school year, Ms. Culligan sent more students to the office for minor offenses than did other teachers. By memorandum dated September 21, 1995, Respondent directed Ms. Culligan to follow the interventions that "have been explained to you countless times." The memorandum reviews the intervention plan in detail and concludes: Failure to follow this directive violates the rights of the student in the academic setting when it has been clearly stated in writing, that this school will follow that particular policy. This is the third occasion that I've had the opportunity to address this particular policy with you and am therefore directing you to follow this policy to the letter. If I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me. After receiving this memorandum and the assistance of Ms. Smith in improving her cultural sensitivity, Ms. Culligan reduced her office referrals to an acceptable level. But her claims of humiliation and embarrassment over Respondent's informative reply at the faculty meeting, as well as her testimony concerning other incidents, are largely the product of the early difficulties that Ms. Culligan experienced with Respondent's new, more demanding discipline plan. Nassiff Incident: Paragraph 41 During another faculty meeting, Respondent was discussing an assembly that was to take place in the next day or two. The assembly, which featured drug-detecting dogs from the Port Authority, would be attended by ALC students. This was to be the first assembly ever for ALC students. Respondent was discussing the logistical aspects of moving the students into and out of the assembly and explaining how the assembly was part of the academic rehabilitation of ALC students. Suddenly, Mr. Nassiff raised his hand and asked who would be responsible for watching his students. They were in physical education at the time of the assembly, and Mr. Nassiff thought that the physical-education teacher should continue to watch Mr. Nassiff's students during what was Mr. Nassiff's planning period. Respondent had told the teachers that they could leave school early that day to make up for their lost planning time. Upon hearing Mr. Nassiff's question, some teachers groaned audibly. Respondent replied by asking Mr. Nassiff, "You're an administrator-in-training. How would you respond to that question?" Mr. Nassiff answered Respondent's question by saying, "I'd give me my planning period." Respondent replied, "That's not an appropriate answer. If you want to be an administrator, you wouldn't ask a question like this. Let me see you after the meeting." After the meeting, Respondent explained to Mr. Nassiff the importance of teamwork. Mr. Nassiff conceded that he had said the wrong thing and knew it the moment he had said it. Respondent first gave Mr. Nassiff an opportunity to extricate himself gracefully from the awkward situation created by his question. When Mr. Nassiff persisted, Respondent answered him, directly but not in a hostile tone. Most teachers found nothing inappropriate in Respondent's handling of this situation. Mr. Nassiff and the few teachers who felt otherwise evidently preferred that Respondent handle privately an issue that Mr. Nassiff raised publicly. But Mr. Nassiff invited a public response, and Respondent's handling of the matter was entirely suitable. Announcement Incident: Paragraph 39 One day early in the 1995-96 school year, the students misbehaved badly. The next morning, during the morning announcements, Respondent stated that he expected students to act appropriately in an academic setting. He noted that too many students were coming down to his office and that they needed to do what teachers tell them to do. Respondent added words to the effect that teachers would continue to follow the intervention plan. The effect of such an announcement, nominally addressed to the teachers, was to notify the students that their teachers had no choice but to follow the intervention plan and, if the students objected to the plan, their problem was with Respondent, not with individual teachers. By this comment, Respondent was trying to take some of the pressure off the teachers for enforcing the new intervention plan, which, as noted above, imposed greater burdens on teachers than the previous policy with its excessive reliance on the timeout room and suspension. The meaning of Respondent's announcement does not lend itself to contrary interpretations. Two of the three witnesses who testified that the announcement demeaned the teachers testified about a number of incidents. The testimony of these witnesses--Ms. Culligan and Ms. Minton--must be doubted based in part on the fact that their claimed reaction to Respondent's announcement appears disingenuous. Holzborne Incidents: Paragraphs 36 and 37 Kathleen Holzborne is the lead communications teacher at the Academy. One school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent opening classroom doors in the Academy looking for someone. This was innocuous. Respondent was likely looking for someone or checking on nearby classrooms after a disturbance. Another school day, Ms. Holzborne saw Respondent admitting drug dogs and their handlers into Academy classrooms while Mr. Wortham was elsewhere in the building. Respondent was doing this under the authority of Mr. Wiseman, who was also in the building. Another school day, Respondent and Ms. Holzborne were in the cafeteria while the Academy students were eating lunch. Respondent said she did not need to stay, adding, "Daughter, everything will be fine here." Respondent is from a family of ministers. He sometimes speaks of persons as sons and daughters, meaning they are sons and daughters of God. He used "daughter" in speaking to Ms. Holzborne in a personal, nonsexual manner not intended to intimidate or offend. Had she objected, he would have apologized and explained his innocent use of the word. However, Ms. Holzborne did not complain to Respondent or anyone else until, months later, she mentioned the comment during Petitioner's investigation. Testifying, Ms. Holzborne seemed much more upset over Respondent's alleged failure to return promptly a piece of a tripod, but Petitioner has not charged Respondent with this omission. Intimidation Incident(s): Paragraph 38 Respondent did not intimidate his teachers or staff. To the contrary, he was supportive of teachers and staff, although he demanded that they work hard and smart. At the time of Respondent's suspension, faculty morale was good. A small number of teachers were dissatisfied with Respondent, but not many. The greater part of the faculty got along with each other and Respondent. A reliable portrayal of Respondent's supportiveness comes from Lisa McKeever, an ALC teacher who displayed an unusual degree of independence for a witness in this controversial case. She testified to tell the truth, unaffected by any fear of retribution from Petitioner or Dr. Santini or from the community of supporters of Respondent. Answering a question about whether she supported the Charles Dailey Foundation, which was organized to help pay Respondent's legal fees, she testified that, if she had money to give away, she would first give it to her children and then to literary or musical organizations before she would give it to the Dailey Foundation or any political organization. On two occasions, students threatened Ms. McKeever while she was seven months pregnant. In one case, a boy pushed her up against a chalkboard. Respondent asked Ms. McKeever what she wanted him to do about it. Ms. McKeever did not want him suspended, so Respondent dealt with him, but did not suspend him. In another case, a girl approached her with a clenched fist, threatening Ms. McKeever by saying, "You stupid flat-assed white bitch. Get out of my fucking face." Ms. McKeever was frightened by this assault, and Respondent expelled the student, who that night was arrested after attacking family members with a knife. Respondent and Administrators, Law Enforcement Officers, Guardians, and School Board Policies A. Overenrollment: Paragraph 51 The overenrollment issue arose at the start of Respondent's tenure as ALC Principal. Dr. Santini arranged a meeting on June 20, 1995, among the three new principals at the New Directions Center. The purpose of the meeting was to divide responsibilities among the principals. Ominously, Dr. Santini testified that she had had lots of experience with Respondent not cooperating. It is not entirely clear what specific ALC enrollment policies were advocated by Dr. Santini and Respondent at the June 20 meeting, or even that either of them advocated a specific policy. Dr. Santini stated that the ALC was a short-term program. Respondent wanted the same flexibility that the ALC administrators had had in the past in deciding when to return students to their geographical schools. The ALC enrollment policy from the preceding school year had been the 45 good-day policy described above. In general, Dr. Santini wanted to limit enrollments due to safety considerations. Overcrowding at the ALC became a bigger problem once the new school year got underway due to the introduction of more students from regular schools, as a result of a new zero-tolerance policy in the regular schools, and increased referrals from the juvenile detention center. Respondent's argument for greater enrollment flexibility was based on behavioral and academic factors. Behaviorally, an ALC student might need more than 45 days before he is ready to return to his geographical school. Academically, an ALC student might have difficulty returning to his geographical school due to the differences in the calendars at the ALC and regular schools. The high schools are on a seven-period daily schedule, and the ALC is on an 18- day modular schedule where one class is taught for 18 days. A behaving, attending ALC student could only take two and one-half classes in 45 school days, so that, when returned to his geographical school, he would be behind his classmates in most of his classes. After the meeting, Dr. Santini spoke with Respondent privately and told him that his behavior during the meeting had bordered on the insubordinate. Respondent countered that Dr. Santini was discriminating against him on the basis of race. Respondent's continued implementation of the 45 good- day policy at the start of the 1995-96 school year did not violate any directive that Dr. Santini had given him. Their disagreement during the June 20 meeting was probably limited to a disagreement over general philosophy. Most likely, Dr. Santini had decided to see the effect on ALC enrollment levels of Respondent's implementation of the 45 good-day policy. On October 20, 1995, Dr. Santini conducted another meeting concerning ALC enrollments. This time she met with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman. She called the meeting after receiving a telephone call that a student had remained at the ALC since April 1995. She was also concerned with current ALC enrollment levels under Respondent's approach. During this meeting, Dr. Santini told Respondent that the ALC building was designed for a maximum of 270 students. She told him to cap enrollment at 250 students. Dr. Santini testified that she told Respondent that she approved of the 45 good-day policy. She also testified that Respondent was angry at the meeting. If Dr. Santini approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting, the only reason why Respondent would have angered at the meeting would have been a disagreement over the application of the policy; after all, Respondent wanted the 45 good-day policy. Perhaps, Dr. Santini believed that she was approving the 45 good-day policy, but in fact she was not, as evidenced by their closing comments and her October 25 memorandum, described below. At the end of the October 20 meeting, Dr. Santini promised written guidelines and asked Respondent if he wanted any input. Dr. Santini testified that Respondent said that the only thing that he disagreed with was, if a student must be returned to his geographical school at the end of 45 days, ready or not, that those schools would be prepared to help him in the transition. Mr. Wiseman promised to adopt or modify the PASS program to help with this transition. The significance of Respondent's comment, as recounted by Dr. Santini, is as additional proof that Dr. Santini had not approved the continuation of the 45 good-day policy and Respondent was resigned to following her new enrollment policy. The comment tends to prove the elimination of the 45 good-day policy because, if the ALC were permitted to retain students until they were ready to return to their geographical school, there would be little need for the geographical school to help with the transition. The comment proves the obedience of Respondent because he had disagreed was more than the issue of the preparedness of the geographical school to help the former ALC student. Respondent had tried and failed to win Dr. Santini's approval for the 45 good-day policy, so that the ALC students returning to their geographical schools would not need any special assistance from the geographical schools in the transition. But this comment proves that he was giving up on the 45 good-day policy. Dr. Santini sent a memorandum dated October 25, 1996, to Respondent with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and all principals in the District. The memorandum largely memorialized what Dr. Santini had said at the meeting five days earlier. Dr. Santini testified that the only change between the October 25 memorandum and what she had said at the October 20 meeting was that she had eliminated the 45 good-day policy. She explained that she did not want Respondent to be the sole person to decide what good days were. However, the omission of the 45 good-day provision from the memorandum is strong proof that Dr. Santini never approved the 45 good-day policy at the October 20 meeting. There were less drastic means of eliminating Respondent's discretion in applying the 45 good-day policy, without eliminating the policy itself. Dr. Santini could have reserved such authority for these decisions to Mr. Wiseman, herself, the principal of the geographical school, or some combination of the above. The October 25 memorandum states in its entirety: The following plan is to be implemented immedi- ately as a result of our meeting on Friday, October 20, 1995. High school, middle school and ESE students will be returned to their home schools at the end of a quarter after approximately 45 days at the Alternative Learning Center (ALC). In most cases, those students entering the ALC during the first three weeks of a quarter would be eligible for return at the end of that quarter. Those students entering after the first three weeks of a quarter would remain at the ALC until the end of the following quarter. In rare cases a student may be returned to a different high school when recommended by the home school principal and agreed to by the receiving principal. All high school principals have agreed to alter their PASS program to accommodate an orderly reentry of students into the high schools. The ALC will not exceed 250 students. When full capacity is reached the student who has made the most progress will be returned to his/her home school when a new student arrives at the ALC. The above procedures would not prohibit a principal from requesting an earlier return or an extended stay at the ALC. The ALC will continue to function in its capacity as a special center serving the high schools, middle schools and special schools with an ongoing influx and reflux of students. It is understood that the school principals and the ALC principal will main- tain open and direct communication in a spirit of cooperation to best help students. Ultimately, the length of a student's stay at the ALC is dependent upon the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals involved. There are two possible interpretations of the October 25 memorandum. Either it is a consistent expression of an inflexible enrollment cap with the final sentence as a general surplusage to other, more detailed provisions to the contrary. Or, if the last sentence is to be given real effect, the memorandum is contradictory and meaningless. Paragraph 1 of the October 25 memorandum states clearly that the duration of a student's enrollment at the ALC is 45 days. As mentioned above, there is no requirement that these be good days. The word "approximately" does not restore any discretion to the ALC principal or anyone else; rather, like Paragraph 2, the word "approximately" allows for some minor flexibility in shortening or lengthening the 45-day enrollment based on the end of the academic quarter. More importantly, Paragraph 5 of the October 25 memorandum unconditionally limits the enrollment of the ALC to 250 students and supplies a simple procedure for the release of students when the enrollment exceeds 250 students. The student making the most progress when enrollment exceeds 250 students is returned to his geographical school. The returned student is not necessarily prepared for the transfer; he is only the most prepared among the ALC students. Paragraph 6 grants some discretion to the principal of the geographical school, not the ALC, to shorten or extend the stay of a student at the ALC. But the provision gives no guidance as to when stays should be lengthened. Nothing in this provision conflicts with the preceding provisions of the October 25 memorandum. The last sentence of the flush language at the end of the October 25 memorandum seems to ignore the preceding, more- detailed provisions of the memorandum. The last sentence abruptly introduces some discretion to the ALC and geographical school principals as to the length of a student's stay at the ALC. Respondent could not afford to read his supervisor's memorandum as contradictory and meaningless. His reading of the memorandum was guided by what Dr. Santini had told him at the October 20 meeting, which was that the 45 good- day policy was no longer in effect. When enrollment reached 250 students, Respondent had to return the students who had made the most progress. As promised, Mr. Wiseman sent a memorandum dated November 1, 1995, to the eight high school principals stating: Please send to me immediately, above your signature, a statement that you will provide the opportunity for returning students from the ALC to make up their work, and not be denied the chance to pass their classes. Return your memo to me by Wednesday, November 8, 1995. The principals did so. Shortly after receiving the October 25 memorandum, in compliance with her directive, Respondent returned 75-80 students to their geographical schools. Included in this number was A.B., whom Respondent returned to Mariner High School. Respondent had serious reservations as to A. B.'s readiness to return to a less-structured school setting. Even the student shared these misgivings. When he learned he was to be returned to Mariner High School, A. B. told Respondent that he was worried that he was not ready to return to a regular school. He had been apprehended with drugs or drug paraphernalia twice previously and was undergoing counseling. Three weeks after he was returned to Mariner High School, A. B. was apprehended with marijuana. On December 13, 1995, a Board-appointed hearing officer conducted A. B.'s formal expulsion hearing. Witnesses at the hearing, including Respondent, were sworn to tell the truth and subject to cross examination. Petitioner was represented by counsel, and A.B. was represented by his father, who has been a law enforcement officer for 21 years and is currently employed with the Cape Coral Police Department. Petitioner charged that A. B. had been in possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia on November 28, 1995, and was a repeat offender. Petitioner sought to expel A. B. for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year and the following year-- evidently, the maximum penalty allowed by law. A. B. had attended the ALC on at least two occasions. His more recent ALC enrollment was from April 17, 1995, through November 6, 1995. In his opening statement at the expulsion hearing, A.B.'s father admitted that A. B. had been caught possessing marijuana and stated: But the point of the issue too is that he was sent back to Mariner. He was in the ALC. He was flourishing in ALC for the first time. Whatever Mr. Dailey sparked in him was the first time since he's ever been in school. He was bringing books home and everything else, which is not heard of from ALC. When he was alerted to come back to Mariner, he went to Mr. Dailey and told him he wasn't mentally or physically ready to go back. Because the other problem that if he's offered a joint, he can't say no. And Mr. Dailey agreed and that's when that fell apart less than four weeks later. The hearing officer asked A. B.'s father if he wanted A. B. to return to the ALC. The father responded by saying, "Yes, sir. I never wanted him to leave. . . . And the result of this too which I wish people would take into consideration, the night that this happened, because of this, my wife tried to commit suicide." A. B.'s father continued in his opening statement: In ALC Dailey sparked four point something and he was studying. He was getting high grades. His grade point average went up. He didn't want to leave. He did not have the problem. Four weeks--it wasn't even four weeks after he was back that this happened. .... I'm not totally blaming [Mariner High School]. A[.] is at fault with that too. And that's what we are addressing through the counseling. But to put him out in the street or expel him I don't think is the answer either. Especially since for the first time in his life he showed an interest in school. Petitioner's second witness in the expulsion hearing was an assistant principal at Mariner High School. He testified in response to a question directed toward the propriety of the handling of A. B. at Mariner High School: Our position there is that Mr. Dailey is a competent expert, that he handles the people and when he recommends for us to come--for someone to come back, we take that individual. . . . Answering the question whether he would have handled A.B. differently if he had known that he had not successfully completed the ALC program, the assistant principal testified: . . . You know, we have to accord him his rights like all the kids who complete the program at the Alternative Learning Center. Once he's paid his debt and satisfied them that he's capable, then they send him to us. I don't know of any students they send to us that they don't feel like has made the improvement that the school was set up to start with. Do you understand what I'm saying? So when they come to us, their staffing to exit over there is telling us that they feel like they had--now the kid has shown improvement and he's now corrected what it is and he's ready to return. Petitioner's last witness at the expulsion hearing, John Hennebery, who is the District Director of Student Services, testified that the ALC Principal determines when the student is to be returned to his geographical school. A. B.'s father called Respondent as his sole witness. In response to a question as to A. B.'s progress at the ALC, Respondent testified: . . . I noticed, number one, he tends to be completely honest and tells the truth. That's the experience I have had with him. He is begin- ning to come around in terms of when he feels someone is making up evidence or getting to that point, he would seek out--attempt to seek out in terms of trying to find some assistance rather than jumping in first. But that again is a kind of structured environment that we have at the Alternative Learning School. Q: In your professional opinion, do you believe that [A.] at this point in time still needs that structure of school? A: I most certainly do. Q: At the time when he was requested from the School Board to go back to Mariner, did [A.] approach you in reference to this? A: Yes, he did. Q: And in what aspect did he? A: The usual policy of the district was that on a first offense there was a 45 good day policy. That means that the student has the responsi- bility of spending 45 good days there, good days, which are defined as attendance, punctu- ality, academic and discipline. And on the second offense it's a ninety day offense. Q: Uh-huh. A: Then this year the rules are changed. In the middle of the semester. I was given a directive from the Assistant Superintendent, along with other Principals were informed of it; that the students were called by numbers. At the Alternative Learning School were addi- tional programs of juvenile justice, programs dealing with the number of felons that we were having come into school; that our numbers were getting too large and we had to--I had to send students back. [A.] was one of the students that had been there a period of time and that based on the period of--on the time that he had spent there, that we have to send him back to Mariner. [A.] had some concern about that and spoke with me in great detail about going back and being under those pressures. Now my conversation with [A.] was that because if he had done well at the Alternative Learning School, that my expectations with [A.] would be that he would go over there and do well and make good decisions at Mariner High School. So that in terms of that's the type of conversa- tion that we had and that's where it led. Now did [A.] complete his stay? No, he did not. And he is not one that I would have automatically sent back to Mariner because I was not yet convinced of his ability to deal with the pressures that he was going to have to face at Mariner High School. * * * Q: But your general concerns that the peer pressure is basically--or the pressures in the school itself that he couldn't handle was also [A.]'s concerns too when he came to speak to you about going back? A: Yes, those were [A.]'s concerns but those would be anyone's concerns as relates to going back to the regular school once you have been at the Alternative for a long period of time. You get the anxiety of going back and wanting to do well. So it's not out of the ordinary for students, I might say, to be excited. I have students right now that actually do something wrong so they won't have to go back. So [A.]'s concern or his emotions that he expressed were not unordinary. I felt at that time that because I was given a directive, that it was my responsibility as a Principal to assist him in moving in that direction and I had all the confi- dence in the world in the Mariner staff that they would assist him in moving in that direction. There is an issue that I must be very honest is that the decisions that [A.] makes is [sic] [A.]'s decisions and once in fact--and this is what we teach them at the Alternative School; that once in fact you see that kind of situation present, then you must not go to the situation. You must remove yourself from the situation. And, you know, I'm one that's trying to be very fair and equitable in this hearing and in telling you that this is a situation that, yes, he should have known not to go near that, should have backed off from it. Q: Did he? A: No, sir, he didn't. Was I ready to release him? No, I wasn't. I'd like to concur with Mr. McNerney. I'd like to see [A.] back at the Alternative Learning School for ninety days with the approval of the-- with some kind of documentation showing that he has completed his drug testing and after that, then backing up Mr. McNerney's decision in attendance at the school. And I'm being very honest. The preceding excerpts from the transcript represent all of Respondent's material testimony. Petitioner conducted limited cross examination, devoted to an exposition of the District's drug policy. A. B.'s father introduced into evidence a letter dated December 12, 1995, from Licensed Mental Health Counselor Beverly Barbato, Ph.D., stating that it is in A. B.'s best interest to return to the structure of the ALC. On December 18, 1995--working without a transcript in the interest of time--the hearing officer summarized the testimony of the witnesses, commending each of them for some aspect of their participation in the hearing. As to Respondent, the hearing officer stated: "Mr. Dailey should certainly be commended for his honesty and his ability to assess the situation in a very diplomatic manner." Acknowledging that Petitioner sought expulsion for the maximum time permitted by law, the hearing officer stated that he "sense[d] that both Mr. Hennebery and Mr. McNerney felt that reinstatement should occur in the 1996-1997 school year or upon [A.] completing a successful drug rehabilitation program pursuant to Florida Statutes." Never mentioning old or new enrollment policies at the ALC in his discussion, the hearing officer accepted the recommendations of Respondent, A. B.'s father, the treating health care professional, and A. B. that A. B. be placed on probation for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year at the ALC, subject to additional conditions. In no way did the hearing officer's recommendation rely on Respondent's brief testimony about the transfer of A. B. under the new ALC enrollment policy. The court reporter finished the transcript on December 26, 1995. In Exceptions filed January 8, 1996, Petitioner requested that A. B. be expelled at least for the remainder of the 1995-96 school year. The record does not indicate what action the School Board took on the hearing officer's recommendation. The expulsion transcript reveals that the Assistant Principal at Mariner High School construed the ALC enrollment policy to ensure that students would not be returned to their geographical schools until they were ready to return. The Director of Student Services shared this misinterpretation, at least to the extent of thinking that the transfer decision was made by the ALC principal. The expulsion transcript reveals that Respondent told the truth that B. had come to Respondent and said he was afraid he was not ready to return. Respondent told the truth that he too shared these concerns. And Respondent told the truth that the current policy was that he had no choice but to return unprepared students when ALC enrollments reached the cap. In one respect, Respondent's testimony may have reflected a misunderstanding of a portion of Dr. Santini's policy. He testified that the new policy meant that "the students were called by numbers." Numbers triggered the necessity to return some students. But the new policy did not require that students be returned on a first in, first out basis. Rather, the students to be returned were to be those most prepared to be returned. Respondent's testimony seems to indicate that he interpreted the new policy as providing that he return students on a first in, first out basis. He implied that he selected for transfer the students who had been enrolled the longest at the ALC. In his next sentence, Respondent mentioned "numbers" in connection with the enrollment at the ALC getting too high as trigger for the need to transfer some ALC students. This suggests that his reference to "numbers" was not to the determination of who to return to their geographical schools. But in his next sentence, Respondent implied that the decision to return A. B. was based strictly on how long he had been at the ALC. However, two sentences later, Respondent recounted how A. B. had done well at the ALC, implying that he had at least made some progress, although without any mention of his progress relative to the progress of the other ALC students. Close analysis of Respondent's testimony does not reveal the basis on which he selected the students to be transferred. However, even if Respondent returned A. B. on a first in, first out basis, this action, although not consistent with the better reading of the October 25 memorandum, would have been consistent with Paragraphs 1 and 2, which imply that the sole criterion of enrollment duration is the length of the student's enrollment. Although close scrutiny of the October 25 memorandum permits a reconciliation of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 5--though not also the last sentence of the flush language-- Respondent cannot be expected to perform such textual analysis to discern meaning from such careless wording. In any event, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing did not dwell on the inflexible enrollment cap ordered by Dr. Santini. He mentioned it briefly, then proceeded to describe, almost as briefly, his application of the policy in A.B.'s case. He cast his testimony in a light favorable to Petitioner by explaining that many ALC students are worried about their ability to survive in a regular school, A. B. had made some progress at the ALC, Respondent had encouraged A. B. to behave at Mariner High School, and A. B. must bear final responsibility for his poor choices. After receiving Dr. Santini's memorandum, Respondent was doing the best he could to implement the new enrollment policy. Probably unknown to Dr. Santini at the time, Respondent called Mr. Wiseman around Christmas vacation and asked if he should transfer 112 students then or wait until the end of the semester in January. Mr. Wiseman told Respondent to retain the students until the semester break. Dr. Santini never tried to clarify her confusing memorandum to Respondent or assist him in its implementation. In response to questioning during a School Board meeting from a School Board member concerning the conflict between Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the October 25 memorandum, Dr. Santini issued a memorandum of clarification dated January 5, 199[6.] The January 5 memorandum was issued to all middle- and high-school principals. The first four paragraphs are identical to the October 25 memorandum, except for the addition of a sentence to the fourth paragraph mentioning some new software to facilitate the transition of students back to their geographical schools. The new fifth paragraph states: The ALC will not exceed 250 students unless there are special circumstances with individual students that may warrant extended time. The principal of the geo-school will discuss these circumstances with the ALC principal. When extended time is recommended, the ALC principal will then compile a short report to the Secondary Operations Director that includes the following: the time already spent at ALC by that student, the original offense committed by that student, and any other justification that may warrant extended time (i.e., parent request). The Secondary Operations Director will consider all above factors and then give approval or disapproval on any requested extended time. Dr. Santini also revised the last sentence of the October 25 memorandum to reflect that the length of a student's assignment to the ALC is dependent on the nature of the original offense and the sound judgment of the principals and-- now--Director of Secondary Operations. The overenrollment issue did not end here. Dr. Santini conducted a meeting with Respondent and Mr. Wiseman on January 9, 1996, but this is addressed below in connection with another issue. However, one more fact has a bearing on the issue of overenrollment itself. Respondent never violated the ALC enrollment policy as Dr. Santini applied it to Respondent's immediate successors, Ms. Smith and Mr. Hagy. During the 77 days of Respondent's tenure, the average student enrollment was 265 students. During the 73 days of his successors' tenure, the average student enrollment was 253 students. After adjusting for actual attendance, there were 184 students present on average under Respondent's tenure and 189 students present on average under his successors' tenure. Improper Voluntary Enrollment and ESE Procedures: Paragraph 52 At the end of July 1995, Respondent called Mr. Hennebery and asked if he could voluntarily enroll two students. Mr. Hennebery explained that ALC administrators had made voluntary enrollments before deciding to discontinue the practice one or two school years ago. Since that time, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman had approved all voluntary enrollments. Mr. Hennebery was not Respondent's direct or indirect supervisor. Mr. Hennebery lacked the authority to accept voluntary enrollments, or to make policy on this issue. At no time did Respondent's direct supervisors, Dr. Santini or Mr. Wiseman, instruct Respondent as to voluntary enrollments. The issue of voluntary enrollments is not, in any event, of major importance. Of the hundreds of students enrolled at the ALC during Respondent's tenure, not more than 18 of them were voluntarily enrolled. Most if not all of the students whom Respondent voluntarily enrolled were exceptional cases who were ineligible to return to their geographical schools or enter the Academy. During Respondent's tenure, six ESE students were transferred from the ALC without individual educational plans. Respondent relied on Mr. Vitale, who was the ESE department head, and Ms. Smith to handle ESE paperwork, as Respondent candidly admitted at the hearing that he was unknowledgeable about ESE procedures. Five of the six students left the ALC and entered Adult Education. These were obviously older students for whom an individual educational plan is of less importance than it would be for students with many more years in the educational system. Ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with ESE procedures at the ALC rests with Respondent. However, the circumstances suggest only an innocent mistake on Respondent's part, not incompetency, misconduct in office, or gross insubordination. Student Visits to Hi Tech Center Central: Paragraph 55 One day in late November 1995, Ms. Saldana had arranged for two students to visit the District's High Tech Center Central, which is a vocational school. When they returned, they told her that, at the end of the day, the counselor at High Tech Center Central had refused to talk to them because they were ALC students. Ms. Saldana called High Tech Center Central Director Ron Pentiuk, who confirmed that he would not allow ALC students to enroll directly from the ALC or even to visit his campus while still enrolled at the ALC. He said that this had been his agreement with Ms. Folaros. Ms. Saldana explained that, in the case of three to five students, they could not first return to their geographical schools because they were graduating early. If they could not enroll in High Tech Center Central directly from the ALC, they could not attend the vocational school. Mr. Pentiuk refused to consider the request, insisting the students still had to spend six to nine weeks at their geographical schools before they could enroll at the vocational school. He said someone in the District office told him not to accept any more ALC students. By letter to Respondent dated December 19, 1995, with copies to Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Wortham, and others, Mr. Pentiuk restated his position: "no ALC students will have direct access to High Tech Central programs. . . . [A]ll visitations shall come from the student[']s geo school and not ALC directly." The letter cites as authority for this policy a meeting that took place at the start of the 1994-95 school year between representatives of High Tech Center Central and the New Directions Center. The implicit reason for this policy is that Mr. Pentiuk wanted someplace to send a student if he failed to perform at High Tech Center Central. By memorandum dated January 10, 1996, to Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent memorialized a discussion at a principals' meeting earlier that day. The agreement appears to allow ALC students who are ready to be returned to their geographical schools, but have not yet been returned, to visit the High Tech Center Central. The record reveals only that Respondent tried to send ALC students to the High Tech Center Central for visits. When they were treated rudely by Center personnel, Respondent and Ms. Saldana discovered an unreasonable policy that emanated not from the District office, but from an understanding reached by Mr. Pentiuk and Respondent's predecessor. This agreement had little logic to commend it. It delayed and, in some cases, denied ALC students access to important vocational training. Mr. Pentiuk explained that he could not deal directly with ALC students because he needed to have a place to which to return them if they misbehaved. However, his concern does not address the aspect of the policy prohibiting even campus visits by ALC students. And his concern fails even to address the remainder of the policy, as the record does not explain why Mr. Pentiuk could not expel students back to the ALC as easily as to their geographical schools. In any event, Respondent and Ms. Saldana rectified the situation, achieving a much-improved policy than the one that preceded Respondent's involvement. Refusal to Reenroll J. M.: Paragraph 50 In September 1995, Respondent refused to reenroll J.M. when his grandmother brought him back to school after an unexcused absence. J. M.'s father had called Respondent and complained that his mother was interfering with J. M., her grandson. The boy was skipping school with the father's brother, who was also of school age. J.M. asked Respondent not to let the grandmother return the boy to school or supply a legal excuse for his absence. When J. M.'s grandmother brought the boy back to school one day, Respondent did as the father had directed him. Respondent told the grandmother, "Ma'am, you can't bring your child back. I got a call from your son, and he is the legal guardian. Call your son and get it straight with him. I shouldn't even be talking to you about J. M." E. Arrest of W. S.: Paragraph 49 On November 1, 1995, W. S. tried to leave the cafeteria without permission. She has a history of violent outbursts. Riley Ware, a teacher, tried to stop her. W. S. asked him who he thought he was with that crooked gold tooth. Mr. Ware responded by telling her to sit her "big-lipped" self down. (Respondent later reprimanded Mr. Ware for this comment.) W. S. swore at Mr. Ware, calling him, among other things, a "black bitch." Teacher Christine Peete then intervened. She said, "Young lady, you've been very inappropriate." Gently placing her arm on W. S.'s shoulder, Ms. Peete added, "Come with me until you cool off." W. S. angrily responded by slinging Ms. Peete's arm off of her shoulder. She shouted, "Get your hands off me, bitch. I'll dip on [beat up] all of you. Ms. Peete had to return to her class, so she asked Ms. Krucher to escort W. S. to the office. Ms. Peete found Respondent in the middle-school area and told him that he needed to deal with W. S. Respondent returned to his office to find W. S. leaving. He greeted her by saying, "Well, daughter, Ms. Peete tells me that you called her a bitch." S. said she called Mr. Ware a bitch, but she did not call "that bitch" (Ms. Peete) a bitch. Respondent told her she was suspended for five days, and W. S. replied, "I don't give a fuck about five days." Respondent raised the suspension to seven days, and W. S. lunged toward Respondent and Ms. Peete, who was standing next to him. W. S.'s initial lunge threw Respondent, herself, and a computer to the floor. Respondent wrestled his way to the top, and W. S. demanded that he get his "big belly" off her. She scratched him or snapped his suspenders, causing his chin to bleed. She grabbed his tie and choked him. She tried to bite and kick him. Respondent ordered a nearby staffperson to call the police. Officer Garrett Kusienski of the Fort Myers Police Department responded to the call and arrived at the school in a three or four minutes. When he arrived at the ALC office, Respondent and W. S. had just gotten off the floor, and Respondent and several male staffmembers were escorting her into the office. Respondent approached Officer Kusienski and asked him to arrest W. S. Officer Kusienski asked why, and Respondent directed him to handcuff and remove her. Officer Kusienski refused to do so until Respondent explained why. Officer Kusienski's police report, which is credited, states Respondent answered that, if Officer Kusienski were not going to do his job, "I needed to get off his campus." Officer Kusienski asked again what happened, and Respondent "stated that he would give all the details to Chief Hart when he was contacted, to get the hell off his campus if I wasn't going to arrest anyone." Officer Kusienski left the building, but returned a few minutes later, spoke with W. S. and possibly others, and took her into custody. The police report notes that another officer, who had arrived on the scene as backup, took statements from witnesses. At the hearing, Officer Kusienski testified that Respondent said, "If I'm not going to do my fucking job to get the fuck off this campus." Officer Kusienski did not explain at the hearing why he deleted one "fuck" entirely and replaced another with "hell" in his police report. It is unlikely that Officer Kusienski was graciously sparing Respondent any embarrassment in the report because he also noted that Respondent became "very disorderly toward me." The only other evidence that Respondent said "fuck" is Ms. Krucher, who testified that Respondent said it to Officer Kusienski once, not twice as Officer Kusienski testified. However, her testimony is contradicted by numerous other witnesses, who testified that she was not there and they did not hear Respondent say "fuck" to the officer or otherwise during the incident. Ms. Krucher's testimony has not generally been credited on grounds, among others, that she harbored considerable ill-will toward Respondent. The testimony of Officer Kusienski is countered by the testimony of Officer Jackson, also of the Fort Myers Police Department. Officer Jackson testified that Respondent did not use foul language toward Officer Kusienski. There is no preponderance of the evidence as to what Respondent said to Officer Kusienski. Respondent Late to Work: Paragraph 54 On November 16, 1995, the parent of a student at Cape Coral High School called Respondent and asked him to attend a meeting for the purpose of determining whether to transfer the parent's child to the ALC. The parent did not want the child transferred to the ALC and asked for Respondent's help at the meeting. Seeing a chance to help control the ALC enrollment, Respondent agreed to attend the meeting, which was scheduled for 7:00 a.m., and try to help the student remain at his geographical school. Respondent's intent was to speak first and then drive back to the ALC, which was about 20-30 minutes away at that time of day. Respondent reasonably expected that he would arrive at the ALC between 7:30 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Respondent typically arrived at school at 7:30 a.m. and took cafeteria duty until school starts at 8:00 a.m. The evening of November 16, Respondent called Mr. Ware and told him to cover the cafeteria the following morning in case Respondent was late. Ms. Smith was on personal leave on November 17. However, Respondent and LAMP principal McCollum had an agreement that, if one of them was absent from the campus, the other would serve as acting administrator to be called upon by teachers or staff as needed. Their agreement--which was a necessity for Ms. McCollum because she lacked an assistant principal--did not require that either give the other advance notice of his absence. Unfortunately, Respondent did not get to speak first at the meeting, which ran longer than Respondent had expected because the student had been charged with drug possession, not merely disrespect to a teacher, as Respondent had been told. From the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Respondent called someone--probably Mr. Ware--and told him that he would be later than he had anticipated the prior night. Respondent returned to the ALC between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. When Respondent did not appear at school by 8:00 a.m., Ms. Krucher told Mr. Wortham that Respondent had left the ALC without an administrator. Mr. Wortham called Dr. Santini and told her. The same afternoon, Dr. Santini or her designee called Respondent and asked him where he had been that morning. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman met with Respondent on November 20 to discuss Respondent's tardiness on November 17. This meeting is described in the following section. By memorandum to Respondent dated November 28, 1995, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, but not to Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini concluded as to the incident: As per our conversation of November 20, 1995, I am reminding you that I consider the fact that you were not in school on November 17, 1995 until 8:45 A.M. with no assistant present, a serious offense. The students at ALC need constant monitoring and supervision and to have the school unstaffed by any administrator, even for forty minutes, could lead to a catastrophe. I do not expect this to happen again. By letter dated December 8, 1995, to Dr. Santini, with copies to Petitioner and Mr. Wiseman, Respondent acknowledged receipt of her November 28 "letter relating to your concerns of me not being present in my building without an assistant." The letter explains that, once at the Cape Coral High School meeting, Respondent learned that the student had not only threatened a teacher, but had also used drugs. The letter states that Respondent had previously covered for Mr. Wortham and Ms. McCollum. Respondent's letter concludes: This is not to say that I don't concur with you. I most certainly agree with you whole heartedly that not only in ALC but all schools, we must have an administrator on duty. An administrator was on duty, as I had informed you verbally. Mrs. McCollum and I had total agreement relating to coverage without any problems. Your letter gives the perception that I was purposely avoiding my responsibility and was irresponsible in fulfilling my duty as a principal. I would like the record to show that I was fulfilling my duty as an educator, as a principal and as a community leader. Through my efforts, I was able to at least save the life of a young man that we could have possibly lost to drugs. This is one I don't have to look over and he not look back. Thank you for your concern and I accept your letter of concern and would vow that I will continue to work with you and to make the ALC the best learning environment that I can. Dr. Santini's November 28 letter is not a letter of reprimand, nor did she intend for a copy of the letter to be included in Respondent's personnel file. Her intent is inferred from the absence of the letter from Respondent's personnel file in mid-February, the omission from the letter of any express notation of copies to Respondent's personnel file (as contrasted to the January 2 letter described below), and the failure of Dr. Santini to respond to Respondent's subsequent characterization of the letter in his letter of December 8. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated any policy of the District in effect on November 17. The record reveals no prohibition against having another administrator, such as Ms. McCollum, cover for Respondent for a short time, even in the absence of advance notice. November 20, 1995, Meeting: Paragraph 42 Three days after Respondent was late to work due to the meeting at Cape Coral High School, Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman visited Respondent to discuss the incident, as well as charges of heavy-handed dealing with students, yelling at teachers, and leaving campus early. Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman dismissed as unfounded all charges except for Respondent's tardiness on November 17. Around this time, Ms. Krucher, who had been talking to Mr. Wortham daily, began contacting Dr. Santini and possibly Petitioner, whom Dr. Santini testified that she had suggested Ms. Krucher call. The purpose of these calls was to supply, on a confidential basis, unfavorable information about Respondent. If the information resembled her testimony, nearly all of it was unreliable. One incident illustrates the lengths to which unidentified persons would go to fabricate evidence unfavorable to Respondent. By two-page, handwritten letter dated February 17, 1996, from Ms. Pepin to Ms. Minton, Ms. Pepin objected to a statement attributed to Ms. Minton in the newspaper to the effect that she spoke for all of the ALC staff when she criticized Respondent. In her letter, which is entirely supportive of Respondent, Ms. Pepin admitted that, last June, she had not much liked Respondent entering her classroom and giving his "new sheriff in town" speech. But the letter continues to state that she now understands the effectiveness of Respondent's style. Someone--not in the office of Petitioner's counsel-- fraudulently altered Ms. Pepin's letter and sent it to Petitioner's counsel. By careful folding, whiting out, and photocopying, this person reduced the two-page letter to five and one-half lines and moved Ms. Pepin's signature beneath these lines, so as to make the letter look like a short note objecting to the "new sheriff" speech. This person then passed the counterfeit note as a gross distortion of Ms. Pepin's views-- literally out of context. It is highly unlikely that such fraud would be perpetrated by someone in the District office. The record does not reveal who had access to the letter after it was received by Ms. Minton. But the incident reveals indisputably the unreliability of at least some of the information that Dr. Santini and Petitioner received about Respondent. In any event, toward the end of the November 20 meeting, Respondent demanded that Dr. Santini tell him who had made the allegations against him. The request was not unreasonable given the inaccuracy of most of the charges. Dr. Santini refused to divulge the name or names of these persons. She explained reasonably that, if she were going to do something about the charges, she would tell him, but she was not going to do anything about them. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was rude in the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's November 28 memorandum makes no mention of any rudeness. Petitioner's counsel did not inquire of Mr. Wiseman as to Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. Dr. Santini's testimony was not detailed in its description of Respondent's behavior at the November 20 meeting. On direct, she testified only that Respondent exhibited an "insubordinate attitude," and "we couldn't talk to him for his continuing to talk to us." Dr. Santini did not use the word "shout" or "yell" to describe Respondent's manner of speaking. On cross, Dr. Santini added only that Respondent was "insubordinate, rude, and unreceptive." Gate Incident: Paragraph 43 Immediately after school on December 12, 1995, a boy hit a girl near the front gate of the New Directions campus. Respondent, Mr. Ware, Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Smith, Ms. Krucher, Mr. Nassiff, Mr. Wortham, and other adults immediately went to the scene. At first, the two students refused to tell Respondent what had happened. A group of boys outside of the gate had seen the altercation. Respondent motioned them to enter the school grounds, but, before he could talk to them, Mr. Nassiff told Respondent that he had seen the altercation. Not needing to speak to the group of boys, Respondent motioned them to go back. However, two or three of them were already inside the gate. A security guard was in the process of locking the two front gates, so Respondent told Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to escort the two or three boys off campus through the back gate, which was closer to their homes. Unknown to Respondent, the remaining boys from the group had just told Mr. Wortham that they were going to beat up the next student whom they saw. Respondent, the two students involved in the altercation, and other staff, except for Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith, walked toward the ALC where Respondent could deal with the two students. Respondent saw Mr. Wortham signalling to Ms. Krucher, and Respondent asked her what he wanted. She replied that he wanted her to close the back gate. Respondent told her not to close the back gate because he had just sent Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith with some students to let them out the back gate. He reminded her that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss. At the time, Respondent was unaware that some Academy students were preparing Christmas decorations inside the back gate, which typically remained open before and after school for deliveries. Respondent was also unaware that Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith had not gone to the back gate because they had been able to get the students through one of the front gates before it had been locked. After Respondent returned to the ALC building, the group of students walked around the side the school to the back gate, where one or more of them beat up an Academy student so badly that he required hospitalization. As soon as Respondent learned of the incident in the back, Respondent called Mr. Wortham, who said he was angry and had some concerns. Respondent invited him to discuss them, but he declined, saying he would instead call Dr. Santini. Respondent suggested that he take his concerns directly to Petitioner in that event. Respondent then found out from Mr. Nassiff and Ms. Krucher what had happened. Respondent asked Mr. Nassiff to explain to Mr. Wortham that Respondent had not known that there were students in the back inside the gate and that Respondent had sent two teachers back there to escort students out of the campus. Shortly after that, Respondent went to the Academy building to speak to Mr. Wortham. Respondent explained what had happened from his perspective, and Mr. Wortham acknowledged that he had later found that out, but, by that time, he had already called Dr. Santini. Petitioner did not call Mr. Wortham to testify about the gate incident, even though Petitioner claims it was his order that Respondent countermanded. Under the circumstances reasonably known to him at the time, Respondent behaved responsibly throughout the gate incident. He did not know he lacked crucial information when he told Ms. Krucher not to go to the back gate. But he reasonably assumed that he had more information than did Mr. Wortham. He knew that he had already sent two men to the back. Even had he known that the boys wanted to beat someone up and that an Academy student was in the back, Respondent would reasonably have relied on Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith to prevent the attack. When Respondent told Ms. Krucher that he, not Mr. Wortham, was her boss, he was merely emphasizing his direction that she not close the back gate. He was not stating the cause for the direction. The cause was that he had sent two men to the back gate. Respondent's comment about who was Ms. Krucher's boss was thus not an act of insubordination or lack of cooperation. I. Respondent's Police Interview About Gate Incident: Paragraph 48 Mr. Nassiff witnessed the police interview of Respondent concerning the gate incident. In the interview, Respondent did not state that he countermanded Mr. Wortham's order to Ms. Krucher to go lock the back gate. Respondent did not withhold material information from the police, who were investigating the beating of the Academy student, not Respondent. The direction that Respondent gave Ms. Krucher was entirely appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by Respondent at the time that he told her not to close the back gate. There was no reason for Respondent to mention this minor point to the police. J. January 9, 1996, Meeting: Paragraph 44 Three days after the gate incident, Dr. Santini asked Respondent to come to her office that day. He said that he was helping students deliver Christmas food baskets to the needy and could not, so they set up a 7:00 a.m. appointment for the following Monday, December 18. When Respondent arrived at the meeting, expecting it to be between him and Dr. Santini, he found Mr. Wiseman and Mr. Wortham, who had prepared a written statement. Dr. Santini said she wanted to hear both sides of the gate incident. Respondent objected that the meeting was unfair because he had not had the chance to prepare a statement. Dr. Santini replied that she had not asked Mr. Wortham to prepare a statement, and Respondent said that at least he had known what the meeting was about. Mr. Wortham and Respondent each stated what happened. Mr. Wiseman asked Mr. Wortham if he had disclosed to Respondent the threat by the group of boys in the front, and Mr. Wortham admitted that he had not. Dr. Santini said that she would speak to Ms. Krucher to obtain a statement, but refused Respondent's request that she also speak to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was worried that he was being set up and informed Dr. Santini that he would be requesting a meeting with Petitioner to complain about the discriminatory treatment that he was receiving. Respondent contacted Petitioner's office to set up a meeting. Petitioner contacted Respondent during Christmas break, and, at her request, the two of them met for two hours on December 28 at a local restaurant. They discussed the ALC enrollment policy, Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing, Respondent's claims of harassment by Dr. Santini, Dr. Santini's practice of invariably bringing Mr. Wiseman with her on visits with Respondent, Respondent's good relationship with Mr. Wiseman whenever he was separated from Dr. Santini, and the gate incident. Petitioner told Respondent that he needed to return to school after Christmas break and work more closely with his supervisors, as well as Ms. McCollum and Mr. Wortham. Petitioner promised to set up a meeting among her, Respondent, and Dr. Santini. This meeting was later scheduled for January 9, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. By letter to Respondent dated January 2, 1996, with copies to Petitioner, Mr. Wiseman, and Respondent's personnel file, Dr. Santini stated that she had completed her investigation into the gate incident and had spoken with Respondent, Mr. Wortham, and Ms. Krucher following the meeting of December Dr. Santini concluded: the key issue is the fact that after Mr. Wortham asked your security guard, Lisa Krucher, to run to the back of the school and lock the gate because he felt the boys who were threatening to harm someone would come in through the back gate, you instructed Lisa Krucher not to lock the gate because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham. I consider this action on your part a poor judgment call and a lack of cooperation with other adminis- trators on campus. * * * I am directing you from this point on, to work together with Mr. Wortham for the benefit of the children in the school. The attitude that employees work for one principal and not another is an attitude that can cause disruption and, as we have seen with regard to this incident, harm to a student. Dr. Santini's letter misstates an important fact. Respondent did not redirect Ms. Krucher "because she worked for you and not Mr. Wortham." He redirected her because he had sent two able staffpersons to the back gate, and there was no need to send a third person. Dr. Santini evidently discredited an important element of Respondent's version of the gate incident. She could not have determined that Respondent countermanded Ms. Wortham's order for the sole reason of showing Ms. Krucher who was her boss, unless Dr. Santini had eliminated the possibility that Respondent countermanded the order because he had already sent two men back there. Whether Respondent sent the two men to the back or not is a difficult fact question. Although Dr. Santini might reasonably have concluded that Respondent, Mr. Ware, and Mr. Smith were lying, her factual determination is deficient as long as she refused to talk to Mr. Ware and Mr. Smith. Respondent was reasonably concerned with Dr. Santini's fairness when she talked to Mr. Wortham's corroborating witness, but refused even to talk to Respondent's corroborating witnesses. On January 5, 1996, which was the date that Dr. Santini issued her letter clarifying the October 25 memorandum on the ALC enrollment policy, Dr. Santini contacted Respondent's office to set up a meeting for January 8, which was the day prior to their meeting with Petitioner. She had by now seen the transcript of the expulsion hearing and wanted to discuss this matter with Respondent. Taking the advice of Dr. Cecil Carter, an administrator in the District, Respondent called Dr. Santini's office back and asked the purpose of the meeting. Dr. Santini relayed the information through someone in her office that they were going to discuss Respondent's "deposition." The only deposition with which Respondent was familiar was in connection with his testimony in the Rockford, Illinois desegregation case. Dr. Santini inadvertently used "deposition" to mean Respondent's testimony at the A. B. expulsion hearing. However, Respondent assumed that she was going to discuss some aspect of desegregation with him. Around 2:00 p.m. on January 8, Respondent told his secretary to call Dr. Santini's office and cancel the meeting. He told his secretary that he was ill and going home directly after school, but told her to tell Dr. Santini that she could call Respondent at home and they could at least talk on the phone. Dr. Santini did not call Respondent at home. Instead, she and Mr. Wiseman appeared, without prior notice, in Respondent's office between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on January 9, 1996, which was the day of the meeting with Petitioner. Respondent said he was busy with school duties, and they waited until he could see them. In a few minutes, Respondent, Dr. Santini, and Mr. Wiseman met. Dr. Santini started the meeting by saying, "Charles, I'm going to talk to you about this deposition." She showed him the transcript of the A. B. expulsion hearing. She stated, "The way this looks, I'm going to have to write you up." Understandably worried that Dr. Santini had already made her decision to discipline him, Respondent asked for permission for his secretary to attend the meeting as a witness. Dr. Santini said no. Respondent then asked to tape the meeting. Dr. Santini agreed. As Respondent left to find a tape recorder, Mr. Wiseman said, "Mary, you're going to have to give him a chance to tell his side of the story." Unable to find a tape recorder, Respondent returned to the meeting. Dr. Santini pointed to a page of the transcript and, without discussing the testimony directly, declared that Respondent had testified that numbers were more important than students. Respondent tried to interrupt, but Dr. Santini would not allow him. Respondent stated, "You can't accuse me of things and expect me not to respond." Dr. Santini replied, "You are going to listen to me." Dr. Santini accused Respondent of talking to A. B.'s father. In fact, Respondent had told him to work with Mr. Hennebery's office. Suddenly, Respondent told her that the meeting was over until we meet Petitioner. Dr. Santini slammed a book and told Respondent that he had "disrespected me and Mr. Wiseman." Respondent answered, "My dear friend, how have I disrespected you?" Dr. Santini stated, "That's it." She turned and walked out the door. Mr. Wiseman was still seated when she left. He then jumped up, shook Respondent's hand, and said, "See you later, baby boy." Alone among the key participants in this case, Mr. Wiseman appears to have maintained his sense of humor. During this brief meeting, for example, Mr. Wiseman was the only person not to have raised his voice. Later on the day of January 9, the meeting with Petitioner took place with Respondent, Dr. Santini, Mr. Wiseman, Dr. Carter, Dr. Counsel, and an administrative assistant in attendance. Respondent began the meeting by reading a letter from him to Petitioner dated January 8, 1996. The letter reviews the condition of the ALC when he was appointed principal, the changes that he has made, and the problems posed by the ALC enrollment policy stated in the October 25 memorandum. The participants discussed the ALC enrollment policy. Respondent objected that it appeared that they had met with other principals and not him. Mr. Wiseman admitted that they had met and had excluded Respondent because he had threatened another principal. There is no evidence of such a threat. After the discussion about ALC enrollments ended, Petitioner said that she was out of time and everyone would have to return to finish their discussion. Petitioner told Respondent that she had sent Dr. Santini and Mr. Wiseman to see him, and she did not want him calling off meetings with her staffmembers, such as he had done that morning. Respondent understood that he should not do that. Respondent complained that he had thought that he was doing an outstanding job and could not understand what the problem was with his job performance. Dr. Santini disagreed with him about the job he was doing. Respondent stated that no one had ever sufficiently spelled out a problem so that he could address it. He asked who was complaining about what. He asked Dr. Santini directly if she had any complaints. Dr. Santini said she had one complaint, but would not disclose it to Respondent, even after being urged to do so by all of the other participants, except the administrative assistant. Dr. Santini said that the attorneys had told her that she did not have to disclose it. She then said to Petitioner, "Bobbie, the problem is he will listen to you, not me." Respondent and Dr. Santini began to argue about the meeting earlier in the day. In anger, Respondent said he would not follow Dr. Santini's directions, but go directly to Petitioner. He also admitted that he was afraid of Dr. Santini. Petitioner closed the meeting by promising to check with the attorneys and see if she could supply Respondent with a copy of the complaint to which Dr. Santini had referred. Two days later, on January 11, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent suspending him with pay due to "your conduct in a meeting with Mr. Herb Wiseman . . . and Dr. Mary Santini on January 9, 1996." The letter adds: "you should know that other allegations have been made against you that are currently being investigated by the District." V. Conclusion Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, or immorality. Petitioner never trained Respondent to serve as a school principal. Respondent's previous administrative roles provided valuable experience, but they had also permitted Respondent to become accustomed to serving in a close relationship with a Superintendent who was also a mentor, working outside the normal hierarchical channels of the District office, and alienating numbers of parents, teachers, and administrators in making tough rezoning and equity decisions. But Respondent's qualifications were obvious. As Petitioner wrote in one evaluation, Respondent was a "role model" for other administrators in, among other things, teamwork. Despite the gaps in his experience, Respondent employed vast stores of energy, enthusiasm, and commitment to make the ALC work for its students. He intelligently assessed the situation at the ALC and devised strategies for exploiting the available resources. Fully aware of his own limitations, for instance, he hired Ms. Smith for her knowledge of curriculum. In a short time, he had produced dramatic results at the ALC. Respondent complied with Dr. Santini's directives, although before adoption he argued with those of them with which he disagreed. The October 25 memorandum, as well as the October 20 meeting, set an enrollment cap. Respondent acceded to Dr. Santini's decision. He closed the October 20 meeting with a plea that geographical schools be prepared to finish the job that the ALC would not have time to finish. He transferred 75-80 students out by early November. He asked Mr. Wiseman around Christmas break if he should transfer another 112 students back to their geographical schools. And his average enrollment exceeded the enrollment of his successors by 13 students--while his average actual attendance was five students less than the average actual attendance of his successors. By mid-December, Dr. Santini, misinformed by unreliable information from Ms. Krucher and possibly other informants at the ALC, was concerned about whether Respondent would work out as the ALC Principal. This concern may have influenced her gate investigation and reaction to Respondent's testimony at the expulsion hearing. The situation rapidly deteriorated when Dr. Santini visited Respondent, unannounced, on the morning of the day that they had a meeting with Petitioner and began the meeting by saying that she would probably have to write up Respondent for his testimony. A supervisor should always be able to conduct a meeting with a subordinate. Respondent should not have abruptly terminated the meeting with Dr. Santini. Supervisors terminate meetings, not subordinates. However, this was an isolated action by Respondent, who had never before terminated a meeting with a supervisor. Respondent had understandably felt that Dr. Santini had treated him unfairly in the gate incident, heard her announce at the start of this meeting what looked like a decision, and decided to deal with all of this at the meeting with Petitioner later that day. Under the circumstances, Respondent's imprudent decision to end the meeting did not rise to gross insubordination. In the final analysis, as Petitioner testified, it is good practice to document problems with employees before terminating them. And, as Petitioner testified, her staff did not do so here. Clearly, Respondent and Dr. Santini have a serious communications problem, for which each bears some responsibility, even though, by the nature of things, a communications problem is typically a bigger problem for the subordinate employee than it is for his boss. But as Dr. Council and Dr. Gunter testified, there was no reason for this case to proceed this far. And the case would not have come this far if District staff had tried to help Respondent or even treated this case as a performance case--where, under the law, District staff would have had to identify Respondent's deficiencies and help him eliminate them.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lee County enter a final order dismissing the Petition, reinstating Respondent, and awarding him back pay as provided by law. ENTERED on June 28, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 28, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except as to date of initial employment. 2-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, to the extent of the implication that these behaviors were more than isolated or represented significant problems. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 6-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, as to the back of the neck. 10 (remainder)-12: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13 (through "end"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "classroom"): adopted or adopted in substance, except as to throwing C. L. into the chair. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (through "credited"): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18 (first sentence): rejected as subordinate. 18 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that O. B. complied with Respondent, who did not apply force to move him. 21: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The testimony of Ms. Culligan is not credible. 22 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 23: rejected as subordinate. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not witness the entire incident. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Ms. Krucher did not step between J. B. and T. R., nor did she witness the rest of the incident. She prevaricated the portion of the incident that she missed while returning J. B. to her classroom, J. B. testified that Ms. Krucher returned her to her classroom. J. B. also testified that Ms. Krucher even tried to convince her than T. R. had not lunged at J. B. Ms. Krucher's credibility as a witness is very poor. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that T. R.'s testimony was stricken after several vacillations demonstrated that, as to this incident, he could not distinguish between the truth and fiction. 28: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 29 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 30 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 31: Respondent's testimony that he feared M. P. was on drugs is not credited, at least to the extent of attempting to create a well-founded fear in Respondent's mind that the mental state of M. P. was so altered as to render him dangerous. However, Respondent intervened with M. P. to stop him from leaving and preclude the possibility that this student, who obviously is afflicted with a serious behavior disorder, might strike Ms. Smith. The remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. There is no need to resort to Ms. Keel's testimony about the "rat's ass" remark. 33 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: adopted or adopted in substance, except as to crediting Ms. Krucher's testimony and as to any harm to the student's mental health. 35 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except that the displaying of the badge never frightened or intimidated anyone and no student believed that Respondent had extraordinary arrest powers by virtue of the badge. When Respondent spoke to the class, they presumably were off-task, but he did not destroy any instructional momentum. 35 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not badger the student or mistreat him in any way. 37: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 38: adopted or adopted in substance, although Respondent appropriately dealt with the student, who should have raised his head to meet the new principal. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent threatened the student with suspension if he did not make eye contact and listen to him. 40 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 40 (third sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40 (fourth sentence): rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 41: rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that on rare occasions Respondent opened doors to Academy classrooms. 43-45: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 46: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except to the extent of findings in the recommended order. 47-48 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance, except Respondent did not say, "her record." (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 49 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 50-51 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 51 (remainder)-52: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 53: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 54 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 54 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Respondent had not made a prior arrangement with Ms. McCollum, but Petitioner failed to prove that he was required to. 55: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 56 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 56 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 58: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent terminated the meeting. The behavior was inappropriate, but did not constitute either insubordination or, more to the point, gross insubordination. 59 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 59 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to no reason to arrest W. S. at the time. However, the altercation had ceased, and Respondent should have answered the reasonably inquiry of the officer. But his behavior did not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency, or immorality. 62: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner never accounted adequately for Officer Kusienski's omission of the word "fuck" from his police report or, less importantly, the discrepancy between Ms. Krucher and Officer Kusienski as to the number of times that Respondent uttered the expletive. Another problem for Petitioner was the contrary testimony of another officer of the Fort Myers Police Department. 63: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 64 (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance, at least as to the effect that the grandmother could not serve as the legal guardian of J. M. because she was not. 64 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and hearsay. 65-66: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 67 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 67 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that Respondent voluntarily admitted up to 18 students. 68: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 69 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 69 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, as to Respondent's role in the failure to obtain individual educational plans constituting misconduct in office, incompetency, or gross insubordination. 70-71: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-13: adopted or adopted in substance, although there is some uncertainty as to the dates of Respondent's early employment with the District. The findings in the recommended order are guided by the dates and job descriptions contained in the evaluations. 13A: rejected as irrelevant. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance, except that M. P. was not fearful. 16-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The incident did occur. 30A-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 44: adopted or adopted in substance, but Respondent's brief conversation with Ms. Krucher more closely resembled the version in the recommended order, rather than the more elaborate version in the proposed finding. 45-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Dr. Santini never reviewed several lines of the testimony. She focused only on one phrase. (remainder)-48 (through "Wiseman"): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, although it is unclear the extent to which they discussed the January 5 memorandum itself, as opposed to the ALC overenrollment issue generally. 49-55: adopted or adopted in substance. 56-57: rejected as subordinate, except to the extent described in the recommended order. 58-62: adopted or adopted in substance, although the fact that Respondent's enrollments were no higher than the enrollments of his successors suggests that Respondent's enrollments did not exceed the cap or the cap as applied. 63: rejected as subordinate. 64-68: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Bobbi D'Allessandro The School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament Kunkel, Miller and Hament 1800 Second Street, Suite 882 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Harry A. Blair Blair & Blair, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 The Honorable Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e) with respect to her treatment of an autistic child in her classroom. If so, then the appropriate penalty for her conduct must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher in the State of Florida. She holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 952211, covering the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and exceptional student education. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 2016. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) teacher at Maplewood. Ms. Newton has been involved in teaching in Marion County since 1999. She started as a teaching assistant, then substitute taught while putting herself through school, then obtained her bachelor’s degree in varying exceptionalities and began teaching full time. She also received her master’s degree in 2007 in the area of interdisciplinary studies in curriculum and instruction. With the exception of an internship at Oak Crest Elementary, all of Ms. Newton’s teaching experience was at Maplewood. Her performance evaluations from the 2004-2005 school year through the 2012-2013 school year all contain at least satisfactory ratings, with the majority of the recent evaluations rating her as highly effective or outstanding, depending on the evaluation tool used. The majority of her evaluations reference her excellent classroom management skills. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, Maplewood received an entirely new administrative team. Laura Burgess was the new principal, Claire Smith and Brian Greene were newly- appointed assistant principals, and Doris Tucker was the new dean. The new administration started at Maplewood in July, approximately a month before the beginning of the school year. Ms. Newton had been teaching and continued to teach autistic students. At the beginning of the school year, she was assigned six students in her self-contained classroom, and had the assistance of one teacher’s aide, Susanne Quigley. Ms. Newton believed strongly in the value of a structured, disciplined classroom, especially when dealing with autistic students. She believed that establishing the rules and routine for the classroom created an environment where any child could be taught, but that without structure and adherence to routine, chaos would result and impair the learning process. Her classroom management skills were well known and in past years, well respected. Both Ms. Newton and Ms. Quigley testified about the assistance she was asked to give to other teachers and students with respect to class management and discipline. Their testimony is credited. After the start of the school year but before September 3, 2013, Laura Burgess, Maplewood’s principal, was notified by the Social Services Education Team (SET team) for the District that Maplewood would be receiving a new student, B.L., who had moved to the area from North Carolina. She also received an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for B.L., which listed his disability as autism spectrum disorder. B.L.’s IEP also indicated that he had problematic behaviors that could impede his learning, including oppositional defiance disorder, tantrums, attention deficit disorder, and extreme violence. The documentation provided to her did not include a behavioral intervention plan, and Ms. Burgess was concerned that B.L.’s placement at Maplewood did not match the needs identified in the IEP. However, she determined that Ms. Newton’s class would be the best placement for B.L., because Ms. Newton had a reputation for having a structured and disciplined classroom, and perhaps B.L. would benefit from that kind of structure. Ms. Burgess saw Ms. Newton that morning and told her that she would be receiving a new student. Ms. Burgess described the issues with the child, and said that if he ended up in Ms. Newton’s class, she should document his behaviors in case he needed to be moved to a therapeutic unit for behaviors (TUB unit). Ms. Newton understood from the conversation that Ms. Burgess believed B.L. should be in a TUB unit, which did not exist at Maplewood. However, later in the day Ms. Newton and her aide, Susanne Quigley, were supervising her students on the playground when she was approached by Claire Smith, one of the new assistant principals. Ms. Smith informed her that B.L. would indeed be placed in her class and gave her a copy of his IEP, with certain portions related to his behavior highlighted. Ms. Newton expressed surprise at the placement, thinking that he would be going to the TUB unit. Ms. Smith had met with B.L. and his mother earlier in the day and felt that he could benefit from Ms. Newton’s structured classroom. She also talked to Ms. Newton about documenting his behaviors should a change be necessary. Ms. Newton was concerned about the addition to her classroom because she already had six autistic students and, with respect to B.L.’s identified behaviors, “we’ve never had a child like that at Maplewood.” Nonetheless, B.L. was placed in her classroom on September 3, 2013. Consistent with her usual practice, Ms. Newton began to teach B.L. the rules of her classroom. For the first two days, there were no major problems. There were instances where B.L. did not want to comply with the directions she gave him or follow the rules of the classroom, but with some coaxing, she was able to get him to comply. Ms. Newton did not see the need to call the front office for assistance on either of the first two days B.L. was in her classroom, but then, Ms. Newton had never called the front office for assistance with any child. At the end of the first day, she had the opportunity to speak with B.L.’s mother briefly when she picked him up from school. After Ms. Newton introduced herself, B.L.’s mother basically confirmed the contents of the IEP. According to what B.L.’s mother told Ms. Newton, B.L. had lived previously with his father and there had been issues both at school and at home with disruptive and violent behavior. Ms. Newton told her they were going to “wipe the slate clean” and asked if there was anything that B.L.’s mother wanted Ms. Newton to work on, and she identified B.L.’s behaviors as an area for improvement. Ms. Newton told B.L.’s mother that Maplewood was a great school, and “that would happen.” B.L.’s third day at Maplewood did not go well. At the very beginning of the day, B.L. would not follow directions to stand with the rest of his classmates at their designated spot after getting off the bus. Instead, he plopped down in the middle of the walkway, in the midst of the area where children were trying to walk to their classes. He had to be coaxed all along the way to get to class, and once there, refused to unpack and sit down. He refused to follow any direction the first time it was given, instead responding with shuffling feet, shrugging shoulders, talking back, calling names, and wanting to lay his head down on his desk instead of participate in class. When it was time for the students in the class to go to art, Ms. Quigley normally took them while Ms. Newton attended to other responsibilities. According to Ms. Quigley, B.L. did not want to go to art class, and had to be coaxed to walk with the others to the art room. Once he got there, he did not follow directions, did not want to participate, and did not want to move from the back of the room. Normally, Ms. Quigley might have let him stand and watch if he remained quiet, but he was not being quiet: he was touching things and grumbling and getting angry. Ms. Quigley knew from prior experience that students with autism tend to mimic the bad behavior exhibited by others, and one child’s actions could cause a chain reaction of bad behaviors. She felt that if she did not remove him from the art room, the other children would also start to misbehave, and she did not want them to follow B.L.’s example. Ms. Quigley took B.L. out of the art classroom and went back to the classroom in search of Ms. Newton. Ms. Newton was not in the classroom, as she was attending to other responsibilities. Ms. Quigley then took B.L. to the office, but again, found no one there to assist her. B.L. was not happy during any of these travels, and again had to be coaxed all along the way. Once she got back to the art class, Ms. Quigley had B.L. stand in the back of the classroom. She was trying to watch him and also attend to the other students, but one of the other students knocked everything off the art table, so Ms. Quigley added clean-up to her responsibilities. At that point, Ms. Newton came into the art room. Ms. Newton took both B.L. and the other misbehaving child back to the classroom while Ms. Quigley stayed with the remaining students for the rest of the art period. What remained of the afternoon became a battle of wills between Ms. Newton and B.L.: Ms. Newton was trying to establish the ground rules for behavior in her classroom with B.L., and B.L. was determined not to follow those rules. The result was Ms. Newton spending the bulk of the afternoon with B.L. and Ms. Quigley attending to the needs of the other students in the class. For at least part of this time, Ms. Newton placed B.L. in time-out, with directions that he was to stand still with his hands to his sides. For Ms. Newton, the purpose of time-out is for a student to gather his or her thoughts, to get himself or herself together, and to remind the student of the rules of the classroom. She wants a student to have time to think about his or her actions, and wants to discuss with the student the nature of the problem presented by his or her behavior and how the problem should be resolved. If a child stops behaving, time-out may begin again. Ms. Newton put B.L. in time-out because he was not following her directions to him. She talked to B.L. about the rules of the classroom and where they are posted in the room, and told him what he needed to do. B.L. is very verbal and able to talk about his issues. Ms. Quigley described him as very high-functioning and not on the same level as other children in the classroom. Instead of responding appropriately, B.L. was calling names, talking out, and using curse words; flailing his arms and legs, wrapping himself in his sweatshirt so that his arms were in the body of the sweatshirt as opposed to in the armholes, and covering his face so that he could not see obstacles in his environment; wandering around instead of staying still; kicking things in the classroom, including a box and a door; throwing objects on the floor, rolling around on the floor and spitting; and generally resisting any instruction. During the course of the afternoon, Ms. Newton attempted to show B.L. what she wanted from him. For example, she demonstrated how she wanted him to stand in time-out by holding his arms in the area close to his wrists to demonstrate standing still with his hands down. B.L. repeatedly resisted this direction and tried to break away from Ms. Newton. B.L. was not only resisting her, but at times appeared to be butting his head against her and kicking her. He was at other times rubbing his hands against his face. Ms. Newton told B.L. he needed to stop rubbing his hands over his face, or she would remove his glasses so that he did not hurt himself with them. When B.L. continued his resistant behaviors, she removed his glasses and eventually put them in his backpack. B.L. continued to lightly slap his face with both hands. Ms. Newton did not physically intervene, but testified that she gave B.L. consistent verbal direction to stop hitting himself. Although he clearly continued to slap his face for some time, Ms. Newton testified that the movement was more like a pat than a slap, and she did not believe that he was hurting himself. Her testimony is credible, and is accepted. Ms. Newton also told B.L. to quit flailing his arms and putting his jacket over his head. She was concerned that he could hurt himself given that he was standing (not still, as directed) near the corner of a table. Ms. Newton told him if he did not stop she would take his jacket from him. He did not and she removed his jacket and placed it on a table in the classroom. She did not give B.L. the jacket back when he wanted it, because she wanted B.L. to understand that there are consequences to not following directions. With approximately 30 minutes left to the school day, Ms. Newton asked Ms. Quigley to call the front office for assistance. Ms. Tucker, the dean at Maplewood, came to her classroom. Before Ms. Tucker’s arrival, Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to stand in the back of the room. He was not following directions and had gone over to sit in a chair near the center of the room. The chair was near a free-standing easel with teaching implements attached to it, and it is reasonable to assume, given B.L.’s behavior, that Ms. Newton did not want him near the easel because of the potential for harm. Each time he went to the seat, Ms. Newton directed him away from it. When Ms. Tucker arrived, he once again sat in the chair he had been directed not to use. Ms. Newton removed him from the chair and told him again he was not to sit in it. B.L. immediately went to another chair in the same vicinity and sat down. Ms. Newton, took him by the arm and away from the chair, and took him out of the room. From Dean Tucker’s perspective, B.L. was just trying to sit in a chair. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, this was just one more instance in a litany of instances where B.L. was refusing to follow her directions. Dean Tucker was outside the room with B.L. when the door closed. B.L. starting kicking and beating on the door, screaming that he wanted in, and opened the door. Ms. Newton placed her arm on his chest and pushed against him to keep him from entering the room, and asked Ms. Tucker to lock the door from the outside, which she did. B.L. continued to kick and beat at the door, and Dean Tucker called assistant principal Greene to assist her. When Mr. Greene arrived, B.L. was still kicking at the door. He kept saying that he wanted in the classroom but would not say why. Eventually Mr. Greene was able to calm B.L. enough to find out that he wanted his backpack. Because it was close to the end of the day, Mr. Greene took B.L. to the office but instructed Ms. Tucker to retrieve his backpack from Ms. Newton’s classroom. Ms. Tucker returned to Ms. Newton’s classroom to retrieve the backpack. Ms. Newton expressed frustration at the decision to return the backpack to B.L., saying that meant “he won.” From Ms. Tucker’s and Mr. Greene’s perspectives, returning the backpack to him made sense, in part because they were not aware of the exchange related to the backpack earlier, and in part because it was close to the end of the day and B.L. would not be returning to the classroom that day. From Ms. Newton’s perspective, the backpack had been taken from B.L. because she had told him she would take it if he did not comply with her directives, and he did not do so. She felt that returning the backpack to him at that point was ensuring that B.L. had no consequences for his bad behavior. After completing their end-of-day responsibilities, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker returned to the classroom to speak to Ms. Newton about B.L. Ms. Newton told them that he had been out of control all day, kicking boxes, pushing chairs, and a danger to himself and others. She stated that it was only B.L.’s third day in the classroom and it would take some time to live up to expectations, but that he knew the rules and knew how to follow them. Mr. Greene felt that Ms. Newton was clearly upset with both him and Ms. Tucker with respect to how B.L. was handled. Ms. Newton asked whether B.L.’s parent had been called, and felt that his parent should have been contacted as part of addressing B.L.’s behavior. After speaking to Ms. Newton, Mr. Greene and Ms. Tucker pulled the videotape for the afternoon in Ms. Newton’s classroom. After scanning through the tape, Mr. Greene went to Ms. Burgess and asked her to view it because the tape’s contents concerned him. Once she did so, Ms. Burgess called Lisa Krysalka, the head of human resources for the District, and after discussion with her, called both the Department of Children and Families and the local sheriff’s office. She also spoke to Ms. Newton and told her she was to report to the District office the following day, and called B.L.’s parent. Rose Cohen investigated the matter for the District, which included speaking to Ms. Burgess, Mr. Greene, Ms. Newton, Suzanne Quigley, and a Ms. Ballencourt, and watching the video. Adrienne Ellers, the lead behavior analyst for the District, was asked to watch the video and to identify any deviations from the TEACH program for student management accepted by the District. Ms. Cohen recommended to the superintendent that Ms. Newton’s employment be terminated, and the superintendent presented that recommendation to the School Board. Ms. Newton appealed the recommendation and a hearing was held before the School Board, which included a viewing of the video of her classroom. The School Board rejected the superintendent’s recommendation for termination by a 3-2 vote. However, Ms. Newton did not return to Maplewood. No evidence was presented to indicate that the Department of Children and Families determined that there was any basis for a finding of child abuse or neglect. Likewise, no evidence was presented indicating that law enforcement took any action against Ms. Newton. There was also no evidence to indicate that B.L. was harmed. The focus of much of the evidence in this case dealt with the video from Ms. Newton’s classroom. The video, Petitioner’s Exhibit 1, is approximately two hours long. It is from a fixed position in the classroom and it shows some, but not all, of Ms. Newton’s classroom. It has no sound. There are parts of the video where, due to lighting deficiencies and similar skin color tones, it is difficult to tell exactly what is transpiring. There are also times when either Ms. Newton or B.L., or both, are not fully within the view of the camera, and sometimes they are not visible at all. With those parameters in mind, the video does show some of the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L. What is clear from the video is that Ms. Newton spends a great deal of time talking to B.L., and that she remains calm throughout the day. B.L. does appear to comply with direction for short periods in the video, but never for very long. The video shows Ms. Newton holding B.L. by the arms; pulling him up both by the torso and by his arms; removing (but not “snatching”) his eyeglasses; removing his jacket with some resistance from him; blocking his access to his jacket; and kicking his backpack away from his reach. It also shows B.L. kicking items in the room, including a large box near where he is standing; rolling around on the floor; flailing his arms and legs around when he is clearly being directed to be still; and generally resisting any attempt at correction. The video also shows that during the time Ms. Newton is focused on B.L., the other students are engaged in learning, and Ms. Quigley is able to work with them without assistance. The Administrative Complaint alleges that “Respondent and B.L. engaged in a tussle which resulted in B.L. falling to the ground.” A more accurate description would be that B.L. resisted Ms. Newton’s attempts to show him how she wanted him to stand, and in his struggling, he went to the ground. It appeared to the undersigned that Ms. Newton was attempting to prevent his going down, but was unable to do so safely. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent “grabbed B.L. by the back of the neck and gripped B.L.’s neck for approximately 10 seconds.” A more accurate description would be that Respondent placed her hand at the back of B.L.’s neck and guided him with her hand at the base of his neck for approximately 10 seconds. She did not grab him by the neck or hold him that way; it appeared that she was protecting him from falling backwards, as he pulled away from her. Respondent did not, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, drag B.L. across the floor. She did attempt to get B.L. to stand one of the many times that he flopped on the floor, and he resisted her attempt. In that process, the two of them did move across the floor a short distance, which appeared to be due to B.L.’s pulling away from her, but she was not dragging him across the floor. All of Ms. Newton’s actions were taken in an effort to either instill the rules of the classroom in order to create for B.L. an atmosphere for learning, or to prevent harm to either herself, B.L., or property in the classroom. Ms. Quigley, who was present in the classroom during most of the interchange depicted on the video, was more focused on the other students in the class than she was on B.L. She has seen a portion of the video since the incident. Ms. Quigley recalls hearing parts of the conversation between B.L. and Ms. Newton, and testified that Ms. Newton never lost control with B.L., and understood from what she heard that Ms. Newton was trying to get B.L. to follow the rules. Nothing Ms. Quigley saw or heard caused her any concern. Barbara O’Brien and Christine Spicoche are both parents of former students who testified on Ms. Newton’s behalf. Both acknowledged that they had not seen the interaction between Ms. Newton and B.L.,2/ but both have been in her classroom on numerous occasions during the years that their children spent with Ms. Newton: Ms. O’Brien’s son was in Ms. Newton’s class for six years, while Ms. Spicoche’s son was there for three years. Both expressed a great deal of gratitude for the positive effect Ms. Newton and her teaching methods have had on their sons’ lives. With respect to both children, the mothers testified that their sons went from children who were out-of-control to children who were able to function appropriately both in the classroom and in other places. As stated by Ms. Spicoche, “It would be best for him to be at a strong hand of a loving teacher who cares, who wants the best for him than being at the fist of the legal system later.” At all times, Ms. Newton’s focus was to establish the rules of the classroom so that B.L., like the other students in her classroom, would be able to learn. B.L. was different from the other students in her classroom, and she admitted he was a challenge. However, Ms. Newton’s actions in this case are consistent with her general philosophy for teaching: to be firm, fair, and consistent at all times. Ms. Newton believes that if you do not follow these principles, you have chaos in the classroom, and where there is chaos, no one is learning. With a disciplined, structured environment, Ms. Newton believes every child can learn, and the atmosphere observed in her classroom is consistent with her philosophy. Ms. Burgess chose Ms. Newton’s classroom for B.L. precisely because of her reputation as having a disciplined structured classroom. However, in her view, Ms. Newton should have just given B.L. his backpack when he wanted it; should have given him his glasses; should have let him just walk around the room when he wanted to; and should have just let him kick the door, rather than ever putting a hand on him. Ms. Burgess did not explain (nor was she asked) how many children in the classroom should be allowed to do what B.L. was doing, and whether learning could still take place should each of the children be allowed to wander, kick, and be disruptive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 25th day of November, 2015.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes. For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent. In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio. On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation. By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn. Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies. Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency. Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave. Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom. "Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave. Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom. Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching. During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem. During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student. Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning. Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him. Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff. Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss. Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke". Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office. Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom. Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright. Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom. Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable. On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation. While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith. On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom. Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors". Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened. On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home. Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing. Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report, Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time". A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options. By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment. Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
