The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Peters has been employed by Petitioner as a Special Education Teacher for eight years. Her first two years of employment as a full-time teacher were at Edison Park Elementary School. Peters has been assigned to Morningside Elementary School ("Morningside") as a full-time Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher for approximately six years. She remains employed at Morningside presently. During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent worked as an ESE teacher dealing with kindergarten and first grades. Even though Peters had a room, she went to the classrooms of the students assigned to her to perform her duties. Peters' job duties and responsibilities included but were not limited to developing IEPs, maintaining attendance and grade records, keeping students records, participating in various meetings and in-services, and performing work as required or assigned by the supervising administrator or his/her designee. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was provided with an assigned class schedule. During Peters' employment at Morningside from August of 2005 through March of 2009, Respondent was disciplined numerous times for not complying with her job duties. Peters repetitively failed to adhere to her class schedule; failed to request administrative permission to leave the worksite; failed to follow faculty sign in/out procedures; left the school site during scheduled classroom work time; failed to complete student IEPs; failed to keep student grading, attendance, and other student records; and continually refused to obey the direct and reasonable orders given by her supervisors, Morningside Principal Ms. Kathleen John-Lousissaint ("Principal" or "John- Lousissaint"), and Morningside Assistant Principal Ms. Sandra Cue ("Assistant Principal" or "Cue").2 The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Peters' personnel file and went through all the required procedures for disciplining Peters, including repetitive verbal directives, approximately 47 written directives by memorandums, numerous Conferences-for-the-Record ("CFR"), and ultimately written reprimands after Respondent continuously refused to comply with previously given directives. From October 4, 2006, to March 16, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written and was issued 16 written directives, including two written reprimands, to adhere to her class schedule and not to make any changes to the class schedule unless approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal.3 On September 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2008, Peters did not adhere to her daily schedule as written when she didn't report to her assignment. Peters received her first written reprimand for failing to adhere to her schedule on September 21, 2008.4 The Principal went out of her way to work with Peters constantly and met with her numerous times providing verbal directives to follow the school policies including adhering to the class schedule. After the first reprimand, Peters continued to fail to adhere to her class schedule numerous times in November and December 2008 and January 2009. Peters received a second written reprimand for failing to adhere to her class schedule on March 16, 2008. Peters signed both of the written reprimands dated September 21, 2008, and March 16, 2008. Each informed Peters that "Any recurrence of the above infraction [would] result in further disciplinary action." By failing to adhere to her schedule, Peters burdened the Morningside administrators and other teachers who had to cover for Respondent or do her work. Peters also impaired the learning environment for the ESE students when she didn't show up, since she was responsible for educating the students assigned to her. Further, when Peters did not report to her assigned classes, she jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care. From November 8, 2006, to February 16, 2009, Peters was issued several written directives including one written reprimand for failing to request authorization from the administration before leaving the school site, and three written directives for failing to sign in and out when leaving and returning to the school site, as per school site policy.5 Peters received two written reprimands on March 27, 2007, and on March 16, 2008, for failing to comply with the established timelines in the execution of a variety of her duties including, but not limited to, recording student grades, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, and failing to utilize the WISE system to complete IEPs. When Peters failed to complete her IEPs, the Morningside administrators had to get other teachers to complete Peters' job in addition to their own assignments. On February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written. Peters was reprimanded on February 20, 2009, for numerous violations of school policy. The reprimand was entitled RESPRIMAND-INSUBORDINATION and stated: On the following dates, November 3, 6, 18, 20, and 25, 2008, December 1, 5, 8, and 9, 2008, January 12, 13, 15 and 21, 2009 and February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, you did not adhere to your schedule as written. On December 10 and 11, 2008, you attended a two day WISE training without prior approval from this administrator. On January 13, 2009, you refused to meet with this administrator. On January 14, 2009, you did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting. Since your Conference-For-[the-]Record meeting in September, you have failed to follow your schedule on 16 occasions, did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting, and have refused to meet with this administrator on five different occasions and refused to meet with the Assistant Principal on one occasion. Your continuous defiance and compliance with the site directives issued on September 25, 2008 and reissued on October 20, 2008, is considered insubordination. It is your professional responsibility as a Miami-Dade County Public School employee to comply with directives issued by the site supervisor. You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contractual responsibilities: Non-compliance with Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.[6] Refusal to meet with this administrator. Failure to adhere to school site procedures. Failure to adhere to assigned schedule as written. At hearing, Respondent answered in the affirmative that she believed that the directives relating to adhering to a work schedule, seeking administrative approval before leaving a school site, and signing in and out when leaving campus were reasonable. Peters' journal, submitted to the School Board detailing her responses to the disciplinary action of February 20, 2009, stated “I’m not following the schedule because it doesn’t make sense.”7 After receiving the reprimand of February 20, 2009, Peters failed to secure approval from an administrator on either February 26, 2009, or March 3, 2009, when she signed out on the staff sign out log and left the building at a time when she was scheduled to work with students. On March 5, 2009, Peters refused to sign the memorandum dated March 4, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that the Assistant Principal provided Peters. The memorandum advised Peters that she had been told on February 20, 2009, to "adhere to [her] schedule and secure administrative approval prior to leaving the building at a time other than the scheduled lunch time.” It also stated: This memorandum serves as a final reminder that you are to adhere to your schedule and you are to request prior approval from this administrator to leave the building at anytime other than your scheduled duty free half hour lunch block. On March 16, 2009, John-Lousissaint observed Peters in the hallway at approximately 8:30 a.m. and instructed her to report to her scheduled assignment. At approximately 8:40 a.m., the Assistant principal saw Peters and told her several more times to report to her scheduled assignment. At 9:00 a.m. Peters was not in her scheduled classroom assignment. On March 16, 2009, the Assistant Principal gave Peters a memorandum dated March 16, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that stated, "You are reminded that you are to adhere to school site procedures and your schedule as outlined unless notified by an administrator." As a result of Peters actions described in paragraphs 21 and 22 above, on or about April 16, 2009, a CFR was held with Peters. Administrators addressed Peters' gross insubordination and misconduct at the CFR. Peters was instructed yet again to adhere to the directives previously issued by the Principal on numerous occasions, and to comply with the reasonable requests of the Principal. Peters testified at hearing that her personal relationship with the school administrators has become strained and she felt she was being singled out. Peters felt as though she were not being treated like a teacher. Peters asserted that she should work with higher level students and didn't feel like she was part of the Morningside team since she didn't have a homeroom.8 On or about May 18, 2009, Morningside's Principal observed Peters in the school's resource room, sitting in front of a laptop, during a time when Respondent was scheduled to be instructing students. John-Louissaint instructed Respondent to follow her schedule and report to room 103. Peters refused and replied, "No, I don't think I will be going." The Principal left and went and brought a union steward back to the resource room, and repeated to Peters, "Ms. Peters as your supervisor and in front of your union steward, you are directed to report to your scheduled assignment." Peters was insubordinate and refused to go stating again, "No, I am not going." The students in room 103 were unattended. On May 20, 2009, the Principal issued a memorandum to Peters regarding the May 19, 2009, incident stating that Respondent's "continuous defiance and non-compliance with previously issued directives is considered blatant and gross insubordination." On or about August 26, 2009, Peters was notified by letter that the Superintendent of Schools was recommending to the School Board to suspend her without pay for 30 workdays. The letter further notified Respondent the reasons for the recommendation included, but were not limited to: gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics. At a regularly scheduled meeting on September 9, 2009, the School Board of Miami-Dade County took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay for just cause including, but not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of those School Board Rules as set forth above in paragraph 28. Respondent was notified of the School Board's action by letter dated September 10, 2009. On March 15, 2010, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board rules regarding responsibilities and duties, and ethics.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Peters without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School (“Henry Reeves”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 1982. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). Julian Gibbs, the principal of Henry Reeves (“Principal Gibbs”), was authorized to issue directives to his employees, including Respondent. The 2011-2012 School Year After holding various teaching positions within the School Board, Respondent was assigned to Henry Reeves beginning with the 2011-2012 school year. On August 18, 2011, Respondent arrived late to work on her first day at Henry Reeves. Respondent was supposed to arrive at Henry Reeves at 8:20 a.m., for a pre-planning faculty meeting and to set-up her room, but she did not arrive until after 12:30 p.m., because she reported that morning to another school, Van E. Blanton Elementary School. On August 23, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibilities memorandum concerning Respondent’s tardiness and informed Respondent that failure to report to work on time in the future would result in further disciplinary action.1/ Some time during the next few weeks, Principal Gibbs conducted an informal classroom walkthrough of Respondent’s class. At that time, Principal Gibbs observed that Respondent did not have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print- rich” classroom and outside bulletin board.2/ On September 16, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to display current student work, update and have print-rich classroom and outside bulletin boards, timely grade and file student assignments, label data charts, and graph student assessment results. Respondent was advised to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by September 20, 2011. On January 4, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to update outside bulletin boards and ensure her desk was organized and clutter free. The memorandum advised Respondent to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by January 6, 2012. The 2012-2013 School Year On October 17, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for allegedly not providing updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent on October 8 and 12, 2012. However, the School Board did not prove at the hearing that Respondent failed to provide updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the October 17, 2012, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. No witness with personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, the October 17, 2012, memorandum directed Respondent to “read and review the Code of Ethics cited in The School Board of Miami-Dade County Bylaws and Policies, 4210.01 and Common Sense Suggestions and School Board Policy 1139, Responsibilities and Duties for Full-Time Personnel.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On November 29, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for arriving late to two meetings on November 13 and 29, 2012. Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that it is her “professional duty and responsibility to report to all scheduled meetings on time” and “to review all notifications in regards to scheduled meetings and events.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On December 12, 2012, Principal Gibbs placed Respondent on support dialogue following an observation he made of Respondent in her classroom. Support dialogue involves a “two-way conversation” between the principal and teacher to develop strategies so that the teacher may improve for the next evaluation. Respondent was upset that she was placed on support dialogue. During the support dialogue meeting between Principal Gibbs and Respondent, Respondent spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner. Later that day during dismissal, Respondent again spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner, but this time in front of other teachers. Because of Respondent’s loud tone of voice during and after the support dialogue meeting, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum advising her to “immediately refrain from exhibiting inappropriate behavior, and adhere to all school site and M-DCPS policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, 3210.01, and Code of Ethics.” Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.” On December 18, 2012, Principal Gibbs held a Conference For The Record (“CFR”) with Respondent, because she allegedly struck a student with a ruler. During the conference, Principal Gibbs provided Respondent with a copy of School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics, and “How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching.” Respondent was “advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District’s concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism.” Respondent was “reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students.” Respondent was informed that “[n]oncompliance with these directives will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures and will be deemed as insubordination.”3/ During the December 18, 2012, conference, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a written letter of reprimand. The written reprimand directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.”4/ On January 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent “Absences and Tardies From Work Directives,” because Respondent was allegedly tardy and/or absent from work during the 2012-2013 school year on the following occasions: October 1, 2012: tardy one hour October 8, 2012: sick one day October 11, 2012: tardy 1 ½ hour October 12, 2012: personal one day October 25, 2012: sick one day December 4, 2012: personal one day December 6, 2012: sick one day December 12, 2012: sick one day December 19, 2012: personal .5 day January 9, 2013: sick one day January 10, 2013: sick one day January 15, 2013: sick one day However, the School Board failed to prove at the hearing that Respondent was tardy and/or absent from work as indicated in the directives and accompanying documentation. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the January 16, 2013, directives he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences. No witness with personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum and accompanying documentation are hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed that “[n]on-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination.”5/ On February 22, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibility memorandum because she was allegedly six minutes late picking up her students from the cafeteria. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the February 22, 2013, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the incident. No witness with personal knowledge of the incident testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed in the memorandum that “[i]t is essential that all teachers pick up their classes on time, especially when other classes are entering the cafeteria.” On March 14, 2013, Principal Gibbs held a CFR with Respondent because she “grabbed” a student “by the arm” on some unspecified date and time when the student was attempting to obtain a set of headphones out of his backpack. Principal Gibbs witnessed this incident [while] conducting an observation of Respondent in her classroom. However, at the hearing, Principal Gibbs provided no further detail regarding the alleged incident other than indicating that Respondent “grabbed” the student “by the arm.” There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent caused the student any emotional or physical injury. The student did not testify.6/ In any event, the CFR directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. The 2013-2014 School Year The School Board alleged in paragraph 18 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 13, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been poked under the eye and Respondent failed to render first aid. When asked about the incident, Respondent was completely unaware that a student had been injured [while] under her supervision.”7/ The School Board failed to prove that a student was poked under the eye on September 13, 2013, while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board points to Principal Gibbs’s testimony that he “personally observed the lead mark under the child’s eye.” This observation by Principal Gibbs allegedly occurred at some point on September 13, 2013, after the school’s dismissal of students, and after “the parent” returned to the school with the child. The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is unpersuasive. Even if Principal Gibbs observed a lead mark under a child’s eye at some time after the alleged incident occurred, that does not prove that the child was poked under the eye while under Respondent’s supervision. The child could have been poked under the eye at any time and anywhere. Principal Gibbs’s conclusion that a child was poked under the eye with a pencil while under Respondent’s supervision is based on speculation and hearsay of the parent and students. Nevertheless, on September 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 19 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 17, 2013 Respondent informed Mr. Gibbs that she had scratched ‘L.G.’, her student.” The School Board failed to prove that Respondent scratched a student under her supervision as alleged in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. No evidence was adduced at hearing in support of the School Board’s allegations in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Moreover, the School Board failed to address this issue in its Proposed Recommended Order. The School Board alleged in paragraph 20 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 18, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been stabbed . . . three times with a pencil by another student. Respondent failed to render first aid and failed to notify the other student’s parents.” The School Board failed to prove that a student was stabbed with a pencil by another student while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 20 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Again, the parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that: “[w]hen Respondent was asked about the incident, she indicated that she was on the other side of the room when it happened.” The School Board’s position, however, contradicts Principal Gibbs’s testimony at the hearing when he was asked: Q. Did you speak to Ms. Parris about this incident? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did she say to you? A. She doesn’t recollect the child being poked by another child in the wrist with the pencil. She just had no memory. Transcript, pages 53-54. Nevertheless, on September 19, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “Based on the witness statements, the following was gathered during the investigation: i. On September 24, 2013, under Respondent’s supervision, or lack thereof, four students were injured. [One] student, ‘A.J.’ was taken to the hospital by her mother hospital [sic] because of a facial contusion.” The School Board failed to prove that any students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Any witness statements are hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. The School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that on September 25, 2013, a third incident occurred in Respondent’s classroom. Specifically, the School Board contends: “A parent approached administration concerned about the safety of her child. . . . The student had been kicked in the face causing her face to swell.” Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. Even if Respondent was on notice of the allegations, however, the School Board failed to prove that a student was kicked in the face while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. Notably, Principal Gibbs testified that when asked about the incident, Respondent “said that she doesn’t recall a child being kicked in the face, but allegedly she was pushed by another child in the class, but she doesn’t recall the child being kicked in the face.” The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is not credible and is unpersuasive. The purported statement contradicts what Principal Gibbs wrote in the September 26, 2013, Professional Responsibilities memorandum. At that time, Principal Gibbs wrote that when Respondent was “asked what happened. [She] stated I have nothing to say.” Nevertheless, on September 26, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” On September 25, 2013, Principal Gibbs met with Respondent in his office to discuss her classroom supervision. The meeting was held behind Principal Gibbs’s closed door. During the meeting, Respondent felt as if Principal Gibbs was speaking to her in an arrogant manner. Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs, spoke to him in a loud manner, and, at one point, hit his desk with one of her hands and stated: “No, I’m not going to allow you to speak to me like that, because I’m 61 years old and I’m old enough to be your mother.” At no time during the meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way. Approximately one week later, Principal Gibbs and Respondent met in his office to discuss some student discipline referrals. During this meeting, Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs and spoke to him in a loud manner. At no time during this meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way.8/ In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s loud voice and conduct in her meetings and conversations with Principal Gibbs constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. Although Respondent may have used a loud voice during the meetings and conversations, and staff members may have overheard Respondent’s loud voice, given the context in which these meetings and conversations occurred (they were meetings and conversations between a principal and teacher--not a classroom situation involving students), the School Board failed to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to the alleged incident on March 14, 2013, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to each of the alleged incidents in September 2013, involving allegations of students getting injured while under Respondent’s supervision, the evidence at hearing failed to show that students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision. Accordingly, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these alleged incidents. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s failure to have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print-rich” classroom and outside bulletin board, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent did not have lesson plans available for a substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. Thus, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these allegations. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent “significantly arrived late” to important faculty meetings. The evidence presented at hearing merely showed that Respondent was late to a pre-planning faculty meeting on her first day at Henry Reeves on August 18, 2011, because she went to the wrong school. The significance of this faculty meeting was not established at the hearing. During the next school year, she was late to two other meetings in November 2012. It is unclear from the record that these two other meetings in November 2012, were, in fact, faculty meetings. Be that as it may, the fact that Respondent was late to three meetings from August 2011 to September 2013-- one of which was on the first day of school when she went to the wrong school--is insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in conduct which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent was tardy and absent from work to the extent alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Even if she was tardy and absent as alleged, however, the tardiness and absences do not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in any conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 30-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 26th day of August, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the actions set forth in the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, and if so, whether these actions constitute just cause for suspension.
Findings Of Fact The Walton County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District of Walton County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Harriet Hurley was a teacher at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley had earlier been a teacher in Georgia for eight years, had been employed in Walton County Schools in 1984 for a period of three years, and taught in Okaloosa County Schools for five years. She then returned to Walton County Schools where she has been ever since, for a career of over 30 years. In addition to her responsibilities as a teacher at Walton Middle School, Ms. Hurley assists in scheduling parent- teacher conferences for students at Walton Middle School. Ms. Hurley’s responsibilities in scheduling conferences are limited to a coordination function. She is not responsible for addressing the substance of the issues to be addressed in the conferences or becoming involved in attempting to resolve them. Principal Hope never asked Ms. Hurley to assume a role as a guidance counselor. Ms. Hurley is employed by the School Board. As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Ms. Hurley’s employment is subject to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2013), which provides that her employment will not be suspended or terminated except for “just cause.” As a teacher, Ms. Hurley is required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, and the Policies and Procedures of the School Board of Walton County, Florida. Ms. Hurley is not the legal guardian of her granddaughter, B.C., who is a student at Walton Middle School. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Hurley’s granddaughter, B.C., approached her in the adult dining area about a group math assignment that was upsetting her. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she had been told by her sixth-grade math teacher, Ms. Black, that her “high grade was gone” because of the failure of her group to complete a group math assignment. B.C. told Ms. Hurley that she blamed S.A., another student in her group, for their failure to complete the work. Ms. Hurley immediately left the adult dining area with her lunch only partially eaten and went with B.C. back to Ms. Black’s classroom. B.C. had been released for lunch a few minutes before the other students because she was an A/B Honor Roll student, so the other students were still in the classroom when Ms. Hurley arrived there. When Ms. Hurley and B.C. arrived at the classroom, the students were packing up their personal items in preparation for their release for lunch. Ms. Black testified in part: At that time, I think it was because the students leave five minutes early, A/B honor roll students. I don’t really want to go ahead and teach them anything, because they’re missing that opportunity to learn. At that time I get them to pack up and get their things together to leave for lunch. There was a high level of noise in the classroom. Ms. Black, in her first year as a teacher, was at her desk trying to help some students who did not understand something, and was in a verbal altercation with S.A., who was walking away from her. On November 20, 2013, S.A. was not a student in one of Ms. Hurley’s classes. Ms. Hurley addressed S.A., telling him that he should not talk to his teacher that way. Ms. Hurley told S.A. to “come here to me.” She was upset with S.A. and told him that he needed to stop playing around. In a loud and forceful tone of voice, she told him that he was not going to be the cause of a “straight A” student getting a bad grade and that he needed to concentrate on his schoolwork. She told him that she knew his mother, who worked at a KFC-Taco Bell restaurant in Miramar Beach, and that she would talk to his mother if necessary. S.A. denied that his mother worked at KFC, and Ms. Hurley restated that she knew that his mother did. The other students in the class heard Ms. Hurley’s disparagement and public discipline of S.A. The bell rang and Ms. Hurley and the students began to leave the classroom. S.A. was embarrassed and upset by the incident. Due to the fact that the students were already packing up their things to leave, and because Ms. Black had been in a verbal altercation with S.A., the actions of Ms. Hurley in Ms. Black’s class did not disrupt the students’ learning environment. Ms. Hurley’s actions were unnecessary. She might have comforted B.C., and encouraged B.C. and her parents to pursue the issue with Ms. Black. S.A. was not one of Ms. Hurley’s students and at the time she decided to go to Ms. Black’s class Ms. Hurley had not directly witnessed any behavior by S.A. that called for immediate correction. Even had it been appropriate for Respondent herself to take action based upon her granddaughter’s information, there was no emergency which required that Ms. Hurley intrude upon a colleague’s class and loudly berate S.A. in front of other students. She used her institutional privileges as a teacher to gain access to Ms. Black’s classroom in order to assist her granddaughter. As Ms. Black was leaving her classroom, she saw that S.A. was reluctantly moving toward the door and she noticed he was crying. She attempted to comfort him. Ms. Black then reported the incident to Mr. Jason Campbell, Assistant Principal, who was in the student lunch room. A few minutes later, S.A. also approached Mr. Campbell to report his version of the incident. Ms. Hurley returned to her lunch in the adult dining room. When Ms. Black came in to the dining room later, Ms. Hurley apologized to her for coming into her classroom. That evening, Ms. Hurley drove to Miramar Beach and went to dinner at the fast food restaurant where she knew Ms. A. worked. Ms. Hurley was one of Ms. A’s teachers when Ms. A. had been in the seventh grade, and the two were casual acquaintances. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. what had happened that morning with S.A. and B.C. in their math group. Ms. Hurley told Ms. A. that she had “kind of stepped out and went into grandma mode” and had “gotten onto” (disciplined) S.A. Ms. Hurley relayed that she had told S.A. that she knew his mother and that if he did not improve his conduct, she was going to let his mother know about his behavior. During the course of the conversation, Ms. A. relayed that she was concerned about an incident involving a damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom, which was S.A.’s SPEAR classroom (“home room”). The following day, on November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley removed S.A. from his first-period classroom. Neither Principal Hope nor Vice Principal Campbell authorized Ms. Hurley to remove S.A. from his first-period classroom on November 21, 2013. On November 21, 2013, Ms. Hurley contacted S.A.’s mother on the telephone on her own initiative and without the authority of Principal Hope or Vice Principal Campbell. Ms. Hurley called Ms. A. on the telephone with S.A. present. Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. talked about the incident involving S.A. and the damaged globe from Mr. Price’s classroom. The telephone conversation had barely begun when Mr. Hope, upon learning that Ms. Hurley had gone to S.A.’s classroom and removed him from class, came into Ms. Hurley’s room and took S.A. back to Mr. Hope’s office. While the School Board alleged that Ms. Hurley and Ms. A. discussed the incident that happened in Ms. Black’s classroom the day before, this was not shown by the evidence. The allegation that Ms. Hurley was misusing her institutional privileges by engaging in the phone call may be correct, for Ms. Hurley was not authorized to discuss the substance of parent/teacher conferences, but was instead limited to scheduling responsibilities. The evidence did not show that the phone conversation was conducted for personal gain or advantage to Ms. Hurley, however. The School Board’s further argument that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, reduced the ability of Principal Hope to efficiently perform his duties is also rejected. Assuming that Principal Hope could even be considered a “colleague” of Ms. Hurley’s, the evidence showed that he was able to efficiently “track down” S.A. with minimal effort. To the extent that Ms. Hurley’s actions on November 21, 2013, exceeded her “job description,” they could be corrected with a simple directive or memorandum, and in the absence of evidence that her actions were taken for her personal gain, they are not a just cause for discipline. Statements were taken from several students in Ms. Black’s math class regarding the incident on November 20th, which vary in detail, but taken as a whole corroborate the findings of fact above regarding the incident on November 20, 2013. No statement was taken from B.C., and neither party called B.C. as a witness at hearing. On December 2, 2013, Ms. Hurley met with Walton Middle School administration to discuss the events of November 20 and November 21, 2013. On December 17, 2013, Principal Tripp Hope issued a letter of reprimand advising Respondent that he would be recommending a 10-day suspension without pay to the Superintendent. On December 18, 2013, the Superintendent notified Respondent of her intention to recommend a 10-day suspension without pay. A Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office, dated December 18, 2013, notified Respondent of the Petitioner’s intent to suspend her employment for 10 days without pay. (As stipulated by the parties.) Although the Notice of Charge of Misconduct in Office did not explicitly identify all rules that Ms. Hurley was charged with violating, the allegations of more specific rule violations were included in the Letter of Reprimand which was attached to the charge. Ms. Hurley was not prejudiced or hindered in the preparation of her defense by any lack of specificity in the charging documents. Ms. Hurley is substantially affected by the intended action of the School Board to suspend her employment without pay for ten days. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley failed to “value” the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, or the nurture of democratic citizenship. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not strive for professional growth or did not “seek” to exercise the best professional judgment or integrity. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley did not “strive” to achieve or sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The evidence showed that by entering S.A.’s classroom and raising her voice in anger towards him in the presence of other students, Ms. Hurley failed to make reasonable effort to protect S.A. from conditions harmful to his learning or to his mental health. The evidence showed that any required discipline of S.A. should not have been administered by Ms. Hurley and so her actions were unnecessary. Her actions, which reduced S.A. to tears, exposed him to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. The evidence showed that in entering another teacher’s classroom to assist her granddaughter by disciplining S.A. when he was not even one of her students, Ms. Hurley used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley lacked integrity, high ideals, or human understanding or that she failed to “maintain or promote” those qualities. The evidence did not show that in entering Ms. Black’s classroom during the final minutes of the class, when the students were already packing up their things and preparing to go to lunch, Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that disrupted the students’ learning environment. The evidence did not show that Ms. Hurley engaged in behavior that reduced her ability or her colleague’s ability to effectively perform duties. One might speculate as to whether Ms. Black’s ability to maintain control over her class in the future was undermined by Ms. Hurley’s aggressive intrusion, but Ms. Black did not testify that her ability to effectively perform was reduced and this was not otherwise shown. There was similarly no evidence offered to indicate that Ms. Hurley’s own effectiveness was reduced. Her actions were not taken in her own classroom, there was no evidence that she had any of Ms. Black’s students in her classes, or that her own students or the student body generally was even aware of her actions. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, constitute misconduct in office. Her actions are just cause for suspension of her employment without pay. The School Board witnesses conceded that Ms. Hurley has never received “formal” counseling, and presented no documentary evidence that she had been counseled even informally. The School Board did present credible testimony from Principal Hope and Assistant Principal Campbell that Ms. Hurley had been informally counseled regarding raising her voice with students and for communication with her peers. The actions of Ms. Hurley on November 20, 2013, were not so serious as to justify a ten-day suspension, but do warrant suspension without pay for three calendar days.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Complaint and Notice of Hearing filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began his employment with Petitioner on October 25, 1977. For the last 13-14 years, he has been employed as a head custodian. On August 24, 1994, he was demoted from his position as the head custodian at Fulford Elementary School to the rank of custodian. Several days later, he was assigned to a high school where he has been employed as the acting lead custodian, a rank between custodian and head custodian. During the 1993-94 school year while Respondent was employed as the head custodian at Fulford Elementary School, a conference for the record was held on November 30, 1993, to discuss Respondent's work performance, his alleged gross insubordination, and his future employment with Petitioner. At that conference, Principal Pope and Assistant Principal Galgano discussed specific instances of their dissatisfaction with the manner in which Respondent maintained the yard at Fulford Elementary. Respondent was specifically advised that further deficiencies in his performance and further acts of gross insubordination would not be tolerated and could lead to further disciplinary action, including non-reappointment. On December 15, 1993, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for the reasons discussed during the November 30 conference for the record. That document entitled "Reprimand for the Record" states, in part, as follows: You are hereby officially recommended [sic] for gross insubordination and your inadequate work performance as a head custodian that refuses to perform his job description and job assignment. On that same date Principal Pope gave Respondent eleven written directives regarding his job duties in maintaining the yard, attending training, and using his walkie-talkie. On February 23, 1994, Principal Pope issued a memorandum to Respondent complaining that Respondent had arrived at work late on January 31 without giving her an explanation. On March 2, 1994, Principal Pope issued a memorandum to Respondent noting that on Saturday February 26, when the teachers and staff and their families worked in the school yard weeding and planting, the "yard had not been picked up nor had the lawn been mowed". That memorandum contained 9 directives. On March 24, 1994, the Director of Petitioner's Department of Plant Operations issued a memorandum to Principal Pope questioning the leadership of Respondent as head custodian and noting that Fulford Elementary School could be kept cleaner. On April 15 Assistant Principal Galgano and Respondent performed a quality assurance audit at Fulford, noting that some of the classrooms, corridors, and grounds were not maintained properly. By memorandum dated April 18 Respondent was directed to better supervise the other custodians and improve the appearance of the courtyard. By memorandum dated May 13, 1994, Assistant Principal Galgano directed Respondent to perform specific tasks in the school yard. By memorandum dated June 7, 1994, Assistant Principal Galgano wrote to Principal Pope, noting her May 13 memo to Respondent, noting that Respondent had to work overtime to prepare the grounds for visitors on May 25, and noting that Respondent had "shedded [sic] paper" while mowing the lawn in preparation for visitors to the school on June 3. On June 29, 1994, a conference for the record was conducted to address Principal Pope's recommendation that Respondent be demoted from head custodian to custodian. During the 1993-94 school year Fulford Elementary School was allocated 4.5 custodians according to Petitioner's formula. Yet, Fulford Elementary only employed 3 full-time custodians, including Respondent. A part-time person helped in the cafeteria for some undisclosed portion of that school year. Principal Pope determined which custodians worked which shift and the specific duties assigned to each. During the 1993- 94 school year Respondent was the only custodian at Fulford assigned to the 7:00 a.m. shift which ended at 3:30 p.m. The other 2 custodians, whom Respondent was responsible for supervising, worked the night shift which began at 3:00 p.m. They were responsible for cleaning the classrooms, offices, bathrooms, corridors, and the remainder of the school facility. As the only custodian on the day shift at Fulford, Respondent was responsible for disarming the alarm, unlocking the building in the morning, and "policing" the grounds. He also unlocked specific classrooms for substitute teachers. He also set up the cafeteria and worked in the cafeteria during breakfast removing trash, wiping tables, and washing the floor. After the cafeteria was clean, he was free to do his yard work until lunch time when he returned to the cafeteria to work there, removing trash and washing the floor and tables. In addition to his cafeteria and yard duties, however, Respondent was responsible for emergency clean-ups whenever a child became sick or was incontinent. He helped unload delivery trucks. He moved furniture and cabinets for teachers and office staff. He performed any other tasks requested by the principal. Respondent carried a walkie-talkie in order that the principal and assistant principal could reach him whenever they wished. The principal paged him to perform special assignments once or twice a day as did the assistant principal. The assistant principal had no problem reaching Respondent on his walkie-talkie. The principal complained that Respondent ignored her when she summoned him on the walkie- talkie. On one such occasion, one of Petitioner's master custodians who was on site looked for Respondent and discovered that Respondent was riding a tractor at the other end of the school site and simply could not hear the principal paging him. Principal Pope asked Assistant Principal Galgano to assist her in supervising the custodians. Galgano discussed with Respondent his work performance on different occasions during the 1993-94 school year. Respondent maintained that he was doing the best he could in view of the fact that he had no one to help him. During the previous school year Respondent had also requested that someone else work with him during the day. Having only one custodian during the day shift is a deviation from the standard recommended by Petitioner's Department of Plant Operations. An employee of that Department specifically advised Principal Pope that Respondent needed help since he was the only custodial worker on the day shift. A principal can request that one of Petitioner's master custodians be sent to the school site to train that school's custodial staff. During the 1993-94 school year a master custodian was sent to Fulford on one occasion at Principal Pope's request to provide additional training for one of the custodians who worked on the night shift. On that occasion and the other time that master custodian was at Fulford he observed the yard and determined that it was "not bad." Principal Pope never requested a master custodian to assist Respondent with additional training. A different master custodian employed by Petitioner's Department of Plant Operations was present at Fulford Elementary on two occasions during the 1993-94 school year and observed the yard. On both of those days the maintenance of the yard met Petitioner's standards. Similarly, the other custodians who worked at Fulford that year observed the yard when they came to work and rated its maintenance as an "8" or a "9" on a scale with "10" being the highest score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause and reinstating Respondent to the position of head custodian with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, 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 31st day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Michael Haygood, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite No. 562 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Patterson and Traynham Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Dade County Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite No. 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, DeSoto County School Board (School Board), to suspend Respondent without pay, and terminate her employment as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Relevant Policies The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools in DeSoto County. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. (2018). This includes the power to discipline instructional staff, such as classroom teachers. §§ 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33, Fla. Stat. Respondent is an ESE classroom teacher at DeSoto County High School (High School). Although Respondent has been teaching for 23 years, she has only been an ESE classroom teacher for the School Board since 2016. Superintendent Cline is an elected official who has authority for making School Board personnel decisions. His duties include recommending to the School Board that a teacher be terminated. § 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat. David Bremer (Principal Bremer) was the principal at the High School at all times relevant to these proceedings, and Cynthia Langston served as the Assistant Principal. The parties’ employment relationship is governed by School Board policies, Florida laws, Department of Education regulations, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into by the School Board and the Desoto County Educators Association, a public union. The CBA relevant to this action was effective July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2021. The School Board employed Respondent on an annual contract basis. “Annual contract” means an employment contract for a period of no longer than one school year which the School Board may choose to award or not award without cause. § 1012.335(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The testimony at the hearing and language in the CBA establish that the annual contract of a teacher, who has received an indication he or she “Needs Improvement” or is placed on an improvement plan, is not eligible for automatic renewal. In these situations, the superintendent has discretion regarding whether to renew that teacher’s annual contract. See CBA, Art. 8, § 16. Article 22, section 8 of the CBA provides for progressive discipline for teachers in the following four steps: (1) verbal reprimand (with written notation placed in the site file); (2) written reprimand (filed in personnel and site files); (3) suspension with or without pay; and (4) dismissal. The CBA makes clear that progressive discipline must be followed, “except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or [involve a] flagrant violation.” February 11, 2019 (the February 11 Incident) This proceeding arises from an incident that occurred on February 11, 2019, after lunch in Respondent’s ESE classroom. The School Board alleges Respondent intentionally threw a foam or Nerf-type football at a student in a wheelchair when he failed to follow her instructions, and the football hit the student. Respondent asserts she playfully threw stress ball-type footballs up in the air and one accidently bounced and hit A.R.’s chair. Respondent’s classroom at the High School consisted of ten to 12 ESE students during the 2018-2019 school year. These students had special needs and some were nonverbal. On the day of the incident, there were nine or ten students in Respondent’s classroom, including A.R., a high school senior with cerebral palsy. Respondent kept small foam or Nerf-type footballs in her desk drawer. The testimony at the hearing established Respondent had used them in the classroom to get the students’ attention in a playful fashion. In addition to Respondent, four paraprofessionals assisted the students in the classroom. Of the four, only three were in the classroom during the February 11 incident: Ms. Walker, Mr. Blevins, and Ms. Murray. Respondent was responsible for A.R. while in her classroom. A.R. uses a wheelchair or a walker to get around, but has a special chair-desk in Respondent’s classroom. A.R. had difficulty in the classroom setting. Specifically, it was noted at the hearing that he has trouble processing what is happening around him, and that he needs help simplifying tasks that require more than one step. Although A.R. is verbal, he is slow to respond. A.R. was described as a “repeater” because he repeats things that others say, smiles if others are smiling, or laughs if others are laughing. In conversation, A.R. would typically smile and nod, or say “yes.” Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s recollections of the February 11 incident were essentially the same. They testified that on the afternoon of February 11, 2019, the students returned to Respondent’s classroom from art class. They were excited and did not settle down for their lesson. As a result, Respondent became frustrated and yelled at the students to get their pencils so they could start their work. Respondent asked A.R., who was in his special chair-desk, to obtain a pencil. A.R. did not respond immediately and Respondent told him to get his pencil or she would throw a football. Ms. Walker’s and Mr. Blevins’s testimony established that, at this point, Respondent threw either one or two blue, soft, Nerf-type footballs approximately six inches long at A.R., who was looking in another direction. One of these blue footballs hit A.R. either in the side of his torso or back. A.R. began flailing his arms while he was in his chair-desk, and the entire room became silent. Ms. Murray was not facing A.R. during the incident, but she heard Respondent yell at A.R. to pay attention. She did not see Respondent throw the balls and was unsure if any of the balls made contact with A.R. After the incident, however, she saw two balls on the floor, picked them up, and returned them to Respondent. Ms. Murray did not recall the color of the footballs, and could only describe them as “squishy.” Respondent testified that A.R. was not paying attention, and she admits she told him she was going to toss the footballs if he did not get his pencil. She denies throwing a blue football at A.R., but instead claims she threw two smaller foam brown footballs. She denied any of the balls hit him, but rather, explained one of the brown footballs bounced off the floor and hit A.R.’s chair-desk; the other fell on her desk. The undersigned finds the testimony of Respondent less credible than the paraprofessionals’ testimony. First, all of the evidence established Respondent clearly threw footballs after A.R. did not respond to her instruction, and Respondent knew (or should have known) that A.R. was incapable of catching the football or responding positively. Second, Respondent’s version of what happened to the balls after she threw them is inconsistent with the testimony of Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins that one ball hit A.R. Respondent’s testimony that one ball fell on her desk is also inconsistent with Ms. Murray’s testimony that she picked up two balls off the floor. Finally, Respondent’s version of events is not believable in part, because neither the brown nor the blue football entered into evidence had sufficient elasticity (or bounciness) to have acted in the manner described by Respondent. Based on the credible evidence and testimony, the undersigned finds Respondent intentionally threw the blue larger footballs at A.R. knowing he would not be able to catch them, one ball hit A.R. in the side or back, and A.R. became startled from being hit. There was no evidence proving A.R. was physically, emotionally, or mentally harmed. Report and Investigation of the February 11 Incident Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins were taken aback by Respondent’s behavior. Ms. Walker was concerned that A.R. did not realize what was happening, and that the rest of the students were in shock. She did not think a teacher should throw anything at any student. Mr. Blevins similarly stated he was stunned and did not believe Respondent’s conduct was appropriate, especially because A.R. was in a wheelchair. At the hearing, Respondent also admitted it would be inappropriate to throw anything at a student even if it was just to get his or her attention. Both Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins attempted to report the incident immediately to the High School administration. Ms. Walker left the classroom to report the incident to Principal Bremer, who was unavailable. Ms. Walker then reported to Assistant Principal Langston what she had seen happen to A.R. in Respondent’s classroom. During this conversation, Ms. Walker was visibly upset. After listening to Ms. Walker, Assistant Principal Langston suggested she contact the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Ms. Walker used the conference room phone and immediately contacted the abuse hotline at DCF. As a result, DCF opened an abuse investigation into the incident. Meanwhile, Mr. Blevins had also left Respondent’s classroom to report the incident to Assistant Principal Langston. When he arrived, he saw that Ms. Walker was already there and assumed she was reporting what had happened. Therefore, he did not immediately report anything. Later that day, Assistant Principal Langston visited Respondent’s classroom, but did not find anything unusual. She did not speak to Respondent about the incident reported by Ms. Walker. The next day, February 12, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston obtained statements from the paraprofessionals, including Ms. Walker and Mr. Blevins in Respondent’s classroom regarding the February 11 incident. These statements were forwarded to Superintendent Cline, who had been advised of the incident and that DCF was conducting an investigation. It is Superintendent Cline’s practice to advise administrators to place a teacher on suspension with pay during an investigation. If the teacher is cleared, the administrator should move forward with reinstatement. In this case, Principal Bremer met with Respondent on February 12, 2019, and informed her she would be placed on suspension with pay while DCF conducted its investigation into the incident. DCF closed its investigation on February 19, 2019. No one who conducted the DCF investigation testified at the hearing, and the final DCF report was not offered into evidence. Rather, the School Board offered a DCF document titled “Investigative Summary (Adult Institutional Investigation without Reporter Information).” This document falls within the business records exception to the hearsay rule in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes, and was admitted into evidence. The undersigned finds, however, the Investigative Summary unpersuasive and unreliable to support any findings. The document itself is a synopsis of another report. Moreover, the document is filled with abbreviations and specialized references, but no one with personal knowledge of the investigation explained the meaning of the document at the final hearing. Finally, the summary indicates DCF closed the investigation because no physical or mental injury could be substantiated. On February 21, 2019, Principal Bremer notified Superintendent Cline that DCF had cleared Respondent, but did not provide him with a copy of the DCF report or summary. Principal Bremer did not have to consult with Superintendent Cline regarding what action to take regarding Respondent. Based on the DCF finding that the allegation of abuse or maltreatment was “Not Substantiated,” Principal Bremer reinstated Respondent to her position as an ESE teacher, but still issued her a written reprimand. The reprimand titled “Improper Conduct Maltreatment to a Student” stated in relevant part: I am presenting you with this written reprimand as discipline action for your improper conduct of throwing foam balls at a student. On February 11, 2019 it was reported you threw a football at [A.R.], a vulnerable adult suffering from physical limitations. As a result of this action, Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) were called to investigate and you were suspended until the investigation was complete. Although maltreatment of [sic] Physical or Mental Injury was not substantiated, DCF reported three adults in the room witnessed you throwing at least two foam balls at [A.R.] because he did not get a pencil on time. Apparently [A.R.] did not follow through with the direction provided by you and you became frustrated for that reason. I am by this written reprimand, giving you an opportunity to correct your improper conduct and observe Building rules in the future. I expect you will refrain hereafter from maltreatment to a student and fully meet the duties and responsibilities expected of you in your job. Should you fail to do so, you will subject yourself to further disciplinary action, including a recommendation for immediate termination and referral of the Professional Practices Commission. On February 25, 2019, Respondent returned to her same position as an ESE teacher, in her same classroom, with the same students, including A.R. Superintendent’s Investigation and Recommendation to Terminate Meanwhile, Superintendent Cline requested a copy of the report of the investigation from DCF and contacted the DCF investigator. Based on his review of what was provided to him and his conversation with DCF, he concluded A.R. may still be at risk. Superintendent Cline found Respondent’s actions worthy of termination because “it is unacceptable to throw a football at a student who has cerebral palsy, and thus, such conduct violates” state rules and School Board policy. School Board PRO at 15, ¶ 72. There was no credible evidence at the hearing that A.R. or any other student was at risk from Respondent. The School Board failed to establish at the hearing what additional information, if any, Superintendent Cline received that was different from the information already available to him, or that was different from the information provided to Principal Bremer. There was no justification or plausible explanation as to why Superintendent Cline felt the need to override Principal Bremer’s decision to issue a written reprimand for the violations. On March 6, 2019, Superintendent Cline issued a letter suspending Respondent without pay effective March 8, 2019, and indicating his intent to recommend to the School Board that it terminate Respondent’s employment at its next regular board meeting on March 26, 2019. Attached to the letter were copies of the Investigative Summary, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081, and School Board Policy 3210. This letter was delivered by a School Board’s human resources employee to Respondent on March 8, 2019. Respondent did not return to the classroom for the remainder of the school year. Respondent’s Disciplinary History Prior to the February 11 incident, Respondent had received an oral reprimand for attendance issues on December 21, 2018. On February 6, 2019, Assistant Principal Langston met with Respondent to address deficiencies in Respondent’s attendance, lesson plans, timeliness of entering grades, and concerns with individual education plans for her ESE students. At that meeting, Assistant Principal Langston explained Respondent would be put on an improvement plan and that if Respondent did not comply with the directives discussed at the meeting, she would be subject to further discipline, including termination. Although the plan was memorialized, Respondent was not given the written plan until after she returned from the suspension. Ultimate Findings of Fact Respondent intentionally threw two footballs in an overhand manner at A.R., a student who could not comprehend the situation and could not catch the balls. She did so either in an attempt to garner the student’s attention or out of frustration because he was not following directions. Respondent did not violate rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., because there was no evidence the incident exposed A.R. to harm, or that A.R.’s physical or mental health or safety was in danger. Similarly, Respondent did not violate School Board Policy 3210(A)(1). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., which prohibits a teacher from “intentionally expos[ing] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.” The evidence established Respondent’s action in throwing the ball was intentional and was done to embarrass or belittle A.R. for not following her directions. For the same reason, Respondent’s conduct violated School Board Policy 3210(A)(5). Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7., which states that a teacher “[s]hall not harass or discriminate . . . any student on the basis of . . . handicapping condition . . . and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment.” Again, the credible evidence established the act of a teacher throwing any item at any student, especially one who requires a wheelchair, is inappropriate and would be considered harassment on the basis of a student’s handicap. Similarly, Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., which requires that a teacher “not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes . . . with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.” For the same reasons listed above, Respondent’s conduct also amounts to a violation of School Board Policy 3210(A)(7). There was no evidence this conduct constituted a real immediate danger to the district, nor does it rise to the level of a flagrant violation. Therefore, the School Board must apply the steps of progressive discipline set forth in article 22, section 8 of the CBA. Pursuant to the terms of the CBA, Respondent should have received a written reprimand for the February 11 incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the DeSoto County School Board: enter a final order finding Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and (2)(c)4.; and corresponding School Board Policy 3210(A)(5) and (7); rescind the notice of termination dated March 6, 2019, and, instead, reinstate Principal Bremer’s written reprimand dated February 25, 2019; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or Collective Bargaining Agreement provision that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits from March 8, 2019, to the end of the term of her annual contract for the 2018-2019 school year. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 13th day of August, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Adrian H. Cline, Superintendent The School District of DeSoto County 530 LaSolona Avenue Post Office Drawer 2000 Arcadia, Florida 34265-2000 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 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)
The Issue In DOAH Case No. 97-5828, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed. In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated July 30, 1998, and, if so, whether he should be dismissed from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida teachers' certificates for violations of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Section 231.262, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Sections 231.261(7)(b) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, the Educational Practices Commission is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in Section 231.28(1). Richard V. Powell holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 585010, which covers the subjects of journalism and English- as-a-Second-Language ("ESOL"). His teacher's certificate has an expiration date of June 30, 1999. Mr. Powell was first employed as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system in August 1985. From 1989 through August 1996, Mr. Powell was assigned to Jose Marti Middle School as an ESOL teacher; in August 1996, he was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School ("JFK Middle School") as an ESOL teacher; in August 1997, he was given a new assignment as the facilitator of JFK Middle School's School Center for Special Instruction. On November 26, 1997, Mr. Powell was temporarily assigned to the Region II office. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Powell was employed by the School Board under a professional service contract. November 1995 incident On the evening of November 19, 1995, at around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., Mr. Powell was driving his Ford Bronco on Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Powell's fourteen-year-old son was sitting in the front passenger seat, and he and his father began arguing about his school behavior and progress and about his failure to do his chores around the house. Mr. Powell became angry and punched his son in the mouth with his fist and then pulled the Bronco off the street, into a vacant lot. Mr. Powell got out of the Bronco, walked around the back of the vehicle to the door on the passenger's side, opened the door, and pulled his son out of the vehicle. After the child was outside the vehicle, Mr. Powell punched his son once in the face and, when the child fell to the ground, Mr. Powell kicked him at least once in the ribs. 8/ The child broke away and ran to a convenience store about twenty-five yards from the vacant lot, where a witness to the incident had already called the police. When he arrived at the convenience store, the child was sobbing and holding his side; blood was pouring from his lip. 9/ After the altercation with his son, Mr. Powell was not feeling well and, believing that his son had run the short distance to his home, Mr. Powell drove home. He waited a few minutes for his son and then walked from his home to Pembroke Road. He saw his son, a police car, and an ambulance at the convenience store, and he walked up to the police officers and identified himself as the child's father. Mr. Powell's son was taken to the hospital and treated and released with a split lip and a bruise in the area of his ribs. Mr. Powell was taken to the Pembroke Pines, Florida, police station. Mr. Powell is a diabetic, and, while he was at the police station, he asked to be examined by a doctor because he did not feel well. He was taken to the hospital, where he remained for about an hour. After his release from the hospital, Mr. Powell was arrested and charged with child abuse. On July 29, 1996, after a bench trial on child abuse charges, the court found Mr. Powell guilty but withheld adjudication, sentenced him to six months' probation, and required him to complete a parent counseling course. 10/ Mr. Powell successfully completed the course in December 1996 and was released early from probation on January 8, 1997. In August 1996, Mr. Powell was transferred from Jose Marti Middle School to JFK Middle School, where Raymond Fontana was principal. In a letter dated August 1, 1996, Seth A. Levine, an assistant state attorney in Broward County, Florida, notified the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system that Mr. Powell had been tried on the charge of child abuse, and he advised the superintendent of the resolution of the case. The letter was forwarded to James E. Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, who reviewed the letter and transmitted the information contained therein to Mr. Fontana at JFK Middle School and to the state Department of Education Educational Practices Services. Mr. Monroe was not aware of the November 1995 incident involving Mr. Powell and his son until on or about August 14, 1996, when he received the copy of Mr. Levine's letter. In a letter dated October 10, 1996, the Education Practices Services notified Mr. Powell that it had received a complaint against him related to the charges of child abuse, and an investigation was begun which led to the filing of the original Administrative Complaint dated January 21, 1997. The disciplinary action taken against Mr. Powell by the School Board with respect to the child abuse charges consisted of a Site Disposition in the case, which the School Board referred to as Case No. A-17734. In a memorandum to Mr. Powell dated October 15, 1996, Mr. Fontana summarized the substance of a conference which was held on October 15, 1996, with Mr. Powell, Mr. Fontana, and William McCard, an assistant principal at JFK Middle School, in attendance. In the memorandum, Mr. Fontana indicated that "[t]he purpose of the conference was to establish a final disposition through administrative review of the above indicated case." Mr. Fontana further stated: Upon review of all the records and talking with you, it is determined that the incident in question happened in Broward County, no adjudication of guilt was established, and legally the case was closed. However, you have agreed to counseling in order to forestall any future problems. The case in question dealt with your own family member and alleged child abuse. We reviewed my expectations of you in regards to your teaching position at John F. Kennedy Middle School and your professional treatment of all your students. We reviewed the State Code of Ethics guidelines dealing with the same subject. Thus, I am directing you to follow the established State Code of Ethics Rules, School Board Policy, and Site Rules dealing with conduct becoming a teacher and subsequent teaching relationships with students. I feel that this will adequately bring closure to this incident and that in the future your teaching behavior will always be of the highest professional standard. In his annual evaluation for the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Powell was rated "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. Likewise, in his annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year, Mr. Powell was assessed "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. This annual evaluation followed a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post-Observation Report completed on April 16, 1997, by Mr. McCard, in which he found that Mr. Powell's performance satisfied every indicator subject to evaluation. 11/ November 1997 incident On November 25, 1997, Mr. Powell was the teacher in charge of the School Center for Special Instruction ("SCSI") at JFK Middle School. The SCSI is an indoor suspension program for children who are being disciplined for behavior violations; SCSI is an alternative to sending these children home for the duration of their suspension. The SCSI class was held in the school cafeteria at JFK Middle School from 9:00 a.m. until the end of the school day at 3:40 p.m. Two sets of double doors provide access to the cafeteria. One set, those on the right, were locked from the outside and not normally used; the students entered and left the cafeteria by the set of doors on the left of the building. At approximately 3:20 p.m. on November 25, 1997, the SCSI students were returning to the cafeteria after cleaning up an area outside the cafeteria. Mr. Powell was outside supervising the students as they returned to the cafeteria, and there was no adult supervising the students who had already moved inside the cafeteria. During this hiatus, a seventh-grade student named M. M. got into an altercation with several other boys in the class whom he suspected of taking his book bag. The boys began pushing and shoving M. M. and encouraging him to fight with one specific boy. M. M. refused to fight; he became angry and upset and left the cafeteria by way of the set of double doors on the right side of the cafeteria. Because he was angry and upset, M. M. pushed the door open quite forcefully. Mr. Powell had had surgery on his right foot the previous day; his foot was in a cast, and he used a cane to assist him in walking. At the time M. M. pushed open the cafeteria door, Mr. Powell was standing outside directly in the path of the door as it opened. M. M. could not see Mr. Powell because there were no windows in the door. As it swung open, the door hit Mr. Powell's injured foot, and Mr. Powell raised his cane and struck M. M. on his right arm. 12/ M. M. ran back inside the cafeteria, in tears. He rushed through the cafeteria and exited through the set of doors on the left side of the cafeteria. He went directly to the office of Sandra Clarke, one of the guidance counselors at JFK Middle School. When he arrived at her office, M. M. was agitated and crying, and he told Ms. Clarke that Mr. Powell had hit him on the arm with his cane. M. M. showed Ms. Clarke the mark on his arm, which was located on the outside of his right arm, midway between his shoulder and his elbow. Ms. Clarke observed that M. M. had a red welt on his arm, and she took him to the office of Patrick Snay, who was at that time the principal of JFK Middle School. Mr. Snay called in Assistant Principal McCard and told him about the allegations M. M. had made against Mr. Powell. Mr. Snay directed Mr. McCard to call the school police and to take statements from the students in the class who witnessed the incident. Mr. McCard took a statement from M. M. and observed the red mark on his arm. A school security guard went into the SCSI class right before school ended for the day and asked that any students who had seen the incident involving Mr. Powell and M. M. stay after school and write a statement telling what they had seen. Several students remained and prepared statements. 13/ Mr. Powell reported for school the next morning but was told to report to the School Board's Region 2 office. Mr. Powell worked at that office for one day, and then, beginning on the Monday after Thanksgiving, he was assigned to work at Highland Oaks Middle School. He worked at that school until he was suspended by the School Board on May 13, 1998. His duties at Highland Oaks Middle School included taking care of disabled students, accompanying them to their classes and to lunch, sitting with them, and taking notes for them, all under the direct supervision of the school's media specialist. At the direction of James Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Practices, a personnel investigation was initiated on December 6, 1997, with respect to M. M.'s allegations against Mr. Powell. A preliminary personnel investigation report was submitted on February 13, 1998, in which the investigator concluded that the charge against Mr. Powell was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on March 25, 1998, attended by Mr. Snay; John F. Gilbert, Director of Region 2; Ms. Falco, Mr. Powell's union representative; Dr. Monroe; and Mr. Powell. Several issues were discussed during the conference: Mr. Powell was allowed to review a copy of the School Board's investigative report regarding the incident involving M. M., and he was allowed to comment on the report. Mr. Powell denied having hit M. M. and advised the School Board personnel that he knew of an eye witness to the incident who would support his denial. Mr. Powell was also allowed to review a copy of the October 15, 1996, memo to Mr. Powell from Principal Fontana, discussed in paragraph 16, supra, memorializing the discipline imposed with respect to the charges that Mr. Powell had committed child abuse on his son. Dr. Monroe advised Mr. Powell that he had failed to comply with the directives included in that disposition. /14 During the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Powell was told that a recommendation would be made to the School Board that his professional services contract not be renewed and that a decision would be made whether to take disciplinary measures against him, which could include suspension or dismissal. In a letter dated April 29, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools recommended to the School Board that Mr. Powell be suspended from his position as a teacher and that dismissal proceedings be initiated against him. The School Board accepted this recommendation on May 13, 1998. On October 29, 1998, Mr. Powell was tried by a jury on the criminal charge of battery arising out of his striking M. M. A number of students testified at the trial, and Mr. Powell was found "not guilty" of the charge. On September 5, 1997, Mr. Powell was honored by the Florida House of Representatives with a Certificate of Appreciation for "his contributions and accomplishments in the National Association of Black Scuba Divers." As a member of that association, Mr. Powell was recognized and commended for his work with the sunken slave ship Henrietta Marie and for his lectures and seminars on the history of this ship. On May 28, 1998, an article about the Certificate of Appreciation appeared in The Miami Times, together with a picture of Mr. Powell and Representative Larcenia Bullard. Nowhere in the certificate or in the news article is Mr. Powell identified as a teacher or former teacher in the Miami-Dade County public schools. Mr. Powell is mentioned and quoted in an article which was published in the South Florida edition of the Sunday Sun Sentinel newspaper on February 1, 1998. The article discussed the celebration of Black History Month by the descendants of slaves who are living in South Florida. Mr. Powell is identified in the article as the person who led members of the National Association of Black Scuba Divers in a dive to the site of the Henrietta Marie. Mr. Powell also gave a lecture on the Henrietta Marie in February 1997 at the Miami-Dade County Community College, as part of a special African-American history course. Summary The evidence presented herein clearly and convincingly establishes that Mr. Powell struck and kicked his son on November 19, 1995, and that he struck M. M. with his cane on November 25, 1997, while carrying out his duties as an SCSI teacher. Mr. Powell's testimony that he did not strike either his son or M. M. is rejected as not persuasive, as is the testimony of those witnesses who testified that Mr. Powell did not strike M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude when he dragged his fourteen-year-old son from the passenger seat of his Ford Bronco, struck his son in the face twice, and kicked his son in the ribs at least once, causing him to suffer a split lip and bruised ribs. This act of violence is not only inconsistent with the public conscience, it is an act of serious misconduct which was in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence against children. The seriousness of Mr. Powell's act is only exacerbated by the fact that he acted in anger. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the November 1995 incident and from Mr. Powell's subsequent trial on the charges of child abuse is the testimony of Dr. Monroe. Dr. Monroe's testimony that there "was considerable notoriety via the print and the electronic media of Mr. Powell's action which resulted in his arrest" was not based on his personal knowledge but was based on information he received in August 1996 from an assistant state's attorney in Broward County. Dr. Monroe's testimony is not only hearsay unsupported by any other evidence in the record, it is not credible to prove that Mr. Powell's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Powell's service in the community. Moreover, Mr. Powell presented evidence that, subsequent to the November 1995 incident, he was publicly recognized for his contributions to the community through his work with the slave ship Henrietta Marie. The evidence presented is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude with respect to the November 1997 incident involving M. M. When Mr. Powell lashed out at this student and struck him with a cane, albeit after the student pushed a door into his injured foot, he demonstrated a flagrant disregard of public morals and of society's condemnation of violence against children, and he committed an act that betrayed the special trust placed in teachers. However, there was no persuasive evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's conduct involving M. M. was sufficiently notorious to expose either Mr. Powell or the education profession to public disgrace or disrespect or that Mr. Powell's service in the community was impaired with respect to the November 1997 incident. The most the evidence demonstrates is that the school received inquiries from parents about the need for their children to give statements regarding the incident, but these inquiries do not rise to the level of notoriety. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to infer notoriety and public disgrace and disrespect from the fact that Mr. Powell was tried and found not guilty of the charge of battery on M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which Mr. Powell struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell violated several provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida because he did not exercise professional judgment; because he inflicted physical injury on M. M. rather than protecting him from such injury; and because he exposed M. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by striking him and causing him to cry in front of his fellow students in the SCSI class. There was, however, no persuasive direct evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. This direct evidence consisted solely of the opinion testimony of Dr. Monroe, which was conclusory and was based exclusively on information he obtained from Mr. Powell's records and from discussions with school administrative personnel charged with monitoring Mr. Powell's conduct and teaching performance. No parents or students or members of the community testified that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and as an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of this incident. Under the circumstances of this case, however, it can be inferred from the record as a whole that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a School Board employee and as a teacher was seriously diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. Mr. Powell stuck a student with a cane during school hours, and the incident was witnessed by a number of students, who were asked to testify both in this proceeding and in Mr. Powell's criminal trial. In addition, the allegations against Mr. Powell with respect to the November 1997 incident were of such a serious nature that it was necessary to relieve Mr. Powell of his teaching responsibilities and to transfer him from JFK Middle School to the Region 2 administrative offices and, from there, to another middle school in which his contact with students was closely supervised. Finally, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which he struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell did not conduct himself in a manner which reflected credit on himself or on the school system, nor did his conduct conform to the highest professional standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that In DOAH Case NO. 97-5828, the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes, and revoking his teacher's certificate for a period of two years, followed by three years' probation, subject to reasonable conditions to be determined by the Commission; and In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes, and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 4-1.09; sustaining his suspension; and dismissing him from employment as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be transferred from Glades Middle School to an opportunity school.
Findings Of Fact For the 1989-90 school year John Sarmiento was enrolled in the Dade County public school system and he was assigned to the eighth grade at Giades Middle School. On November 27, 1989, Petitioner administratively transferred him from Glades Middle School to J.R.E. Lee, an opportunity school. The stated basis for the transfer was the student's disruptive behavior and his failure to adjust to the regular school. As an opportunity school, J.R.E. Lee has a more structured program than a traditional school, such as Glades Middle School, and is designed to assist students with discipline problems. While attending Glades Middle School, John Sarmiento repeatedly engaged in disruptive conduct that interfered with his own learning and with the learning of others in his classes. This conduct resulted in his being referred to the assistant principal's office between five and ten times per week. On one occasion the student, while in class, threw a piece of chalk at another student. On another occasion, the student engaged in an argument with another student that almost resulted in a fight during class. On an almost daily basis, the student would wander around the class while making loud, boisterous comments. This student's misconduct would have merited his suspension according to the district code of student conduct. Instead of suspending this student, the school officials worked with him and with his parents in an effort to improve his behavior. Unfortunately the considerable efforts of the personnel at Glades Middle School to serve the student's educational needs did not succeed. The student needs the structured environment that the opportunity school can provide, and his educational needs will best be served by his transfer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which approves John Sarmiento's assignment to the J.R.E. Lee opportunity school. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami, Florida 33165 Maria Ruiz de la Torre, Esquire 7111 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite Three Miami, Florida 33138 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Paul W. Bell Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
