The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has just cause to discipline Respondent for restraining a student with disabilities, in violation of Petitioner’s policy 5.181(4)(a), (4)(b)(iv), and (6)(d)(iii)(A), and, if so, whether Petitioner may depart from progressive discipline and impose a one-day suspension, as provided by the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Petitioner and The Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (CBA).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified ESE teacher and has taught ESE classes for 12 years. Since 2012, Respondent has taught at Royal Palm School, which is an ESE center operated by Petitioner for students ranging in age from 3 to 22 years. During the 2014-15 school year, as well as summer school of 2015, Respondent taught a K-1 class of mostly five- and six-year-olds in an intellectual disabilities class. At the start of the 2014-15 school year, Respondent's classroom consisted of 12 ESE students, although Respondent's class, by the end of the school year, consisted of 11 students and, in summer school, 9 students. At the start of the school year, the principal assigned two aides to Respondent's classroom. The students' disabilities were varied. Student 10 suffers from Down Syndrome, has deficits in vision and hearing, and was the most cognitively challenged of the students in the class. Student 10 used a "chew toy" for oral stimulation, wore diapers, and required full assistance when eating. He was unaware of danger and required adult supervision at all times, including a curb-to-curb escort on arriving and leaving school. Student 10's delays in cognition, communication, and social/emotional development limited his interactions with adults and peers. Based on his May 2015 IEP, by the end of the school year, Student 10 still could not attend for more than five seconds in response to an adult voice, required hand-over-hand assistance to mark paper, demonstrated no hand dominance, repeatedly grabbed nearby items and placed them into his mouth for oral stimulation, could not maintain eye contact, and (if permitted) wandered about the classroom climbing onto chairs and tables or spinning in continuous circles. He was unable to walk more than 300 feet on uneven surfaces independently without losing his balance and engaged in various behaviors, likely to self-stimulate or to modulate stimulation, including rocking side to side while standing or rocking his chair back and forth while sitting. Student 10 had rocked his chair the prior school year until his teacher placed the chair against a wall, so he could not rock it. Student 11 was aggressive and would slap, kick, bite, spit, and throw things at adults and peers. Another student was blind and defenseless. Student 11 had bitten this student once and had tried to bite him on another occasion, so adults had to ensure that Student 11 could not get at the defenseless student, who had been attacked on two other occasions by other students. Another student suffers from Dandy Walker Syndrome, which involves swelling of the cerebellum due to the collection of intracranial fluids. She is deaf, tends to aspirate her food, suffers seizures, has limited mobility, and is highly aggressive. Another of the students has a serious liver disorder, so that the consumption of certain foods could be deadly. Although her mother sent food to school every day, the student tried to take other students' food and eat it. She also must be kept from bending over, which may necessitate emergency hospitalization. Another student is developmentally disabled, deaf, and blind. These five students required one-on-one adult supervision as much of the time as adult staff was available to provide it. In addition to Student 10, four other students were diagnosed with Down Syndrome. One of these students was limited to baby food and tried to escape from the classroom every time he approached the door. He also threw things at other students. One of the other students with Down Syndrome is much less mobile, but constantly pushed over chairs. Much time of the adults in Respondent's classroom was spent in toileting. Ten of the students were still in diapers. These students required considerable assistance in the bathroom to avoid accidents that would leave the area soiled with feces. One aide estimated that nine of these students averaged four diaper changes daily; the tenth--the student with the liver condition--required six or seven diaper changes daily. She estimated that an aide would spend an average of three minutes changing a wet diaper and six minutes changing a soiled diaper, which, she testified, occurred with a high frequency. The aide added that considerably more time was involved if the child's clothing also required changing, but she did not estimate the frequency of this occurrence. Ignoring clothing changes, toileting activities thus consumed at least three hours daily of aide time. Aides were also required to devote one hour daily to hall duty and substantial blocks of time to serving breakfast and assisting with children leaving or entering buses or other transportation. In sum, due to these responsibilities, half of an aide was not available for supervision in the classroom during instruction or transitions. The principal's assignment of two aides to Respondent's classroom was based on Petitioner's policy of one aide per every six ESE students. Although the staffing of Respondent's classroom conformed to Petitioner's staffing policy, at the start of the 2014-15 school year, Petitioner and her two aides were overwhelmed by the needs of their 12 students, prompting Respondent to seek help from her administrators. The principal agreed to provide Respondent relief if the District office approved the creation of another classroom at Royal Palm School. However, the enrollment at the school failed to meet the threshold for the addition of another class. In the alternative, the principal directed other persons, including an occupational therapist, physical therapist, varying-exceptionalities teacher, deaf-and-hard-of-hearing teacher, speech-language pathologist, and behavior resources teacher, to meet and find a solution for Respondent. The group appointed by the principal met four times in November 2014 to devise a plan to help Respondent with her entire class. The first meeting took place on November 7, 2014, with 13 attendees, including Respondent. Although the principal did not attend the first two meetings, the perspective of the administration was presented by the behavior resources teacher, who led off the meeting by acknowledging that the principal had asked them to identify ways to help Respondent better meet the "safety and needs" of her students using existing staff. Respondent spoke next, stressing the need for "additional staff" and distributing a handout describing her students in general terms. The behavior resources teacher suggested splitting the class in two by allowing aides and "support staff" to use an adjacent, underused room to teach half the class while Respondent taught the other half. Respondent stated that she needed another aide. In addressing a suggestion that an aide might volunteer to help out in Respondent's classroom, one of the existing aides mentioned that the other aides knew of the problems, such as children removing their clothes and one child playing with his stool, so any aide would have to be assigned. Someone asked if the classroom was set up for "good teaching," and Respondent replied, "yes, but we have serious danger issues." The existing aide noted staffing deficiencies, but the behavior resources teacher answered, "Do the best with the people we have now." The meeting concluded with several persons offering to supervise some of Respondent's students during parts of the day, but a unique aide to one child worrying that she and the nurse would be exposed to potential liability if they were expected to serve the needs of any students besides the single student to whom they were assigned. A few days later, a group of 10 persons reconvened. The minutes of this meeting conclude that all staff was willing to try to help Respondent, there was a "great need for additional help to assist with toileting and general assignments throughout the day," and Respondent continued to insist on additional staff. One week after the first meeting, 14 persons met for a third meeting. This group included Respondent, the principal, and the assistant principal. Attendees addressed the changes that had already been made, including greater use of the adjacent room effectively to reduce the ratio of students to adults in Respondent's classroom. The principal agreed to hire a third aide. The group discussed that students were overturning furniture and changes were needed to avoid injury to someone. Someone had suggested bigger tables--presumably, too heavy for the students to overturn--and the appropriate person was trying to locate some. The final meeting took place on November 24, 2014, with 13 attendees, including Respondent, the principal, and the assistant principal. A discussion of Student 11 mentioned the proper use of a Rifton chair, which is equipped with a lap belt. The behavior resources teacher emphasized that the chair must be used properly, and the assistant principal added that it may not be used for restraint. The third aide had been assigned to the classroom, and Respondent reported that she had helped a lot. About three weeks later, during the final week of school before winter break, Respondent reported to the behavior resources teacher that the behaviors in her classroom had improved and transitions were proceeding smoothly. Respondent did not elaborate at the hearing on the effect of the behavioral improvements that followed the assignment of a third aide to her classroom toward the end of the first semester of the 2014-15 school year. Clearly, adult time was consumed partly by dealing with maladaptive behaviors, but many of the time-consuming features of the class, as described above, were not behavioral, at least in the sense of their amenability to dramatic change: for example, the demanding toileting needs of all but two of the students; Student 10's cognitive challenges, unawareness of danger, need for oral stimulation, need for hand-over-hand assistance to mark a paper, and spinning, rocking, and tendencies to climb atop the furniture; and the extraordinary needs of the students with Dandy Walker Syndrome, the liver disorder, and development disability with blindness and deafness. The CBA authorizes discipline of employees for "just cause." CBA, Art. II, § M, ¶ 6. Petitioner is required to impose progressive discipline, which, in ascending order, is a verbal reprimand with a written notation, written reprimand, suspension without pay, and dismissal. CBA, Art. II, § M, ¶ 7. Petitioner is limited to progressive discipline "[e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District" or "the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such [sic] clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules." Id. Petitioner has failed to prove just cause for disciplining Respondent in connection with Student 11. Petitioner failed to prove the material allegations involving Student 11 other than that, when he became overstimulated and unruly, Respondent directed him to sit on a bean bag chair in the back of the room so that he could recompose himself before returning to his seat. This directive was entirely reasonable, especially given Student 11's above-noted proclivity toward biting and spitting upon his neighbors and staff, including one particularly vulnerable child. The evidence fails to establish that any adult folded up Student 11 "like a taco" in the bean bag chair or directed Student 11 to fold himself up in the chair. It is possible the sides of the chair could have been pulled up to interfere with the occupant's sight line of something that had been distracting him or someone he had been assaulting, but no evidence suggests that pulled-up sides substantially blocked Student 11's view of the room or that the sides would remain pulled up for very long. When giving a statement to Petitioner, Respondent's casual description of her use of the bean bag only underscores that its use was innocuous; this statement did not constitute, as Petitioner contends, a concession of child abuse in an unguarded moment during an intensive interrogation. On this record, the evidence fails to prove that Respondent's use of the bean bag chair was in any way inappropriate, and Student 11 is not further addressed in this recommended order. On the other hand, Petitioner has proved just cause for disciplining Respondent in connection with Student 10. Petitioner proved that, in violation of Petitioner's policy governing the restraint of ESE students, on several occasions, Respondent attached a bungee cord to the legs of Student 10's chair, stretching the cord around the legs of the table at which Student 10 sat. The cord did not touch Student 10, unless he could reach it with his feet, nor did the cord force the chest or stomach of the child to press against the edge of the table. But tethering the chair to the table prevented Student 10 from pushing his chair back from the table to get out of the chair without assistance from an adult. It is not entirely clear when Respondent first used the bungee cord to restrain Student 10. She applied the bungee cord for not more than one hour at a time when one of the aides was at lunch or unavailable in the classroom due to toileting or other duties that removed her from direct contact with the students, and Student 10 was rocking in his chair, at risk of tipping over. This practice clearly took place after the addition of the third aide to the classroom. At no time did Student 10 acknowledge the presence of the bungee cord or indicate any embarrassment at its use. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was not a means to punish Student 10. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was not for her personal convenience, such as to permit Respondent to escape her instructional and supervisory duties during the school day. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was to protect Student 10 from tipping over his chair and harming himself while allowing Respondent and the aides to monitor more closely other vulnerable students. Respondent worked hard to obtain help in her classroom, and administrators responded with a third aide. It seems that the additional adult may have helped with the more behavioral problems. But the more intractable issues presented by the students still had to be managed, and Respondent continued to advocate for the needs of her students. At one point during the school year, Student 10's mother gave to Respondent a prescription for occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy. Respondent delivered this prescription to the school's occupational therapist, who said they would evaluate Student 10, but not until the end of the school year, despite the fact that the child obviously suffered from significant deficits that are properly addressed by occupational therapy. The record provides no support for a departure from progressive discipline. If every violation of the policy restricting the restraint of ESE students justified a departure from progressive discipline, the policy and perhaps the CBA should so provide, but they do not, so it is necessary to analyze the circumstances of Respondent's violation from the perspective of the language of the CBA's departure clause. In general, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's use of the bungee cord clearly constituted a real and immediate danger to the District. Not a natural person, the District is most obviously jeopardized by legal liability. There is no evidence of the reaction of the mother of Student 10 upon being told of the use of the bungee cord with her son. There is no evidence of any legal action that has been commenced or is likely to be commenced by Student 10's mother, any advocate for disabled students, or any federal or state agency responsible for monitoring compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Investigations by the Department of Children and Families and Petitioner's police were closed without any action. Nor has Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's acts and omissions constitute clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable rules. The reference to "reasonable" rules is puzzling, as though some rules are not reasonable, but, if it must be said, Petitioner's policy restricting the restraint of ESE students is reasonable. Also, Respondent's violation was purposeful. Admitting that she never told any administrator about her use of the bungee cord, Respondent testified that she did not know that her use of the cord violated Petitioner's policy against restraints when applied to ESE students. If Respondent meant that she was unaware of Petitioner's policy addressing the restraint of ESE students, this testimony is discredited. Even the aides understood that there was a general prohibition against restraining ESE students. Also, during one of the four meetings in November 2014, one or two participants alluded to the policy. Lastly, generous portions of the policy are incorporated in the CBA. If Respondent meant that she was unaware that her use of the bungee cord violated Petitioner's policy, this testimony also is discredited. The purpose of the bungee cord was to restrain Student 11, and the policy broadly restricts the restraint of ESE students. Petitioner thus proved that Respondent's violation was purposeful because she knew of the policy restricting the restraint of ESE students, knew that the bungee cord restrained Student 10's freedom of movement, and knew that her use of the bungee cord violated the policy. The CBA requires, though, that the violation also be flagrant. Flagrant means " conspicuously offensive <flagrant errors>; especially: so obviously inconsistent with what is right or proper as to appear to be a flouting of law or morality <flagrant violations of human rights>." http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/flagrant. The bungee cord itself was inconspicuous, as it extended a few inches about the floor under a chair and a table amid a classroom of tables and chairs. No administrator who happened by Respondent's classroom for the several months that the bungee cord was in intermittent use ever noticed it. Other students appeared not to notice the use of the bungee cord, as Student 10 suffered no embarrassment from the use of the bungee cord in this manner. Respondent's use of the bungee cord was not conspicuously offensive. All three aides witnessed Respondent's use of the bungee cord for several months, but said nothing and did not seem to think that the use of the bungee cord presented much, if any, of an issue. The third aide, who had worked only part of the school year, mentioned the bungee cord to the assistant principal, but primarily as support for her complaint that Respondent's summer-school class of nine students could not be served by only two aides. A conspicuously offensive act would have generated more dramatic responses from the aides. Respondent's motivation in using the bungee cord also undermines a finding of flagrancy. As noted above, the class presented serious demands on the four adults. Especially when one or two aides were unavailable due to other duties, the bungee cord kept Student 10 from harming himself and allowed Respondent and the available aide or aides to better serve the other children, as in preventing one from striking a particularly vulnerable child, preventing one from eloping, and preventing one from bending over or eating others' food, or providing a few extra minutes of direct support to a developmentally disabled child who could neither see nor hear what was going on around him. Respondent's use of the bungee cord did not expose Student 10 to an unreasonable risk of personal harm. An adult could quickly remove him from the tethered chair, probably more quickly than she could remove a child strapped into a Rifton chair. In no way did this restraint pose as much risk as that posed by one or more adults’ grasping and holding a child, say, pinned to the ground. Student 10 could not self-evacuate with or without the bungee cord. Whatever theoretical risk of harm was posed by the few seconds that it would take for an adult to push the tethered chair back to allow Student 10 to get out of his chair was more than offset by the gain in safety from stopping the climbing atop furniture and tipping the chair back. When administrators at Royal Palm School learned of Respondent's use of the bungee cord during summer school in 2015, they immediately removed Respondent from her teaching assignment under her summer-school contract, without pay, for the remaining 12 days of summer school. The following year, she was assigned alternative duties that did not involve student contact, but was paid at her regular rate.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding just cause for disciplining Respondent for a violation of Petitioner’s policy 5.181(k)(ii) in connection with the restraint of Student 10, issuing a verbal reprimand with a written notation instead of the proposed one-day's suspension, and denying Respondent's claim for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 16th day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Law Office of Thomas L. Johnson, P.A. 510 Vonderburg Drive, Suite 309 Brandon, Florida 33511 (eServed) Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Laura E. Pincus, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County Office of General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-323 Post Office Box 19239 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Dr. Robert Avossa, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Respondent, an elementary school teacher, should be disciplined under sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016),1/ for inappropriately disciplining a student in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 5.2/; and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 1197418, covering Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Reading, and Exceptional Student Education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2022. The Respondent began the 2016/2017 school year teaching second grade at Shingle Creek in Orlando, which is in the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) school district. It was her fourth year of teaching there. Her teacher evaluations were satisfactory. She did not use corporal punishment, and did not yell or scream at her students. She had no disciplinary history. (She had one non-disciplinary directive for blurting out an expletive in pain when she fell in class and hurt her knee.) Shortly after the start of the 2016/2017 school year, the Respondent realized she had a student, B.K., who took things that did not belong to her. B.K. was bright and popular among the children in class, but she could not be relied on to tell the truth. From the beginning of the school year, the Respondent had to take steps to discipline B.K.’s misbehavior and try to correct it. Soon after the start of the school year, B.K. put a laptop computer in her back pack, instead of returning it to the charging cart in the classroom as all the other children did when they finished using it. At the end of the day, B.K. told the Respondent that another student put the laptop in her back pack. The other student denied it, and the Respondent was obliged to refer the matter to the school administration. An assistant principal investigated and interviewed B.K., who admitted to taking it. The Respondent also found her own personal books in B.K.’s back pack. B.K. falsely accused a classmate of putting them there. On another occasion, another teacher caught B.K. with the Respondent’s “Hello Kitty” flash drive. B.K. told the teacher that a friend had given it to her, which was false, and the teacher wrote a referral to administration. As a result of these incidents, the Respondent had a conference with B.K.’s parents. B.K.’s father reported that he had found books at home that did not belong to his daughter. B.K. admitted that she had taken them from the classroom. The Respondent was obliged to make a classroom referral. The Respondent continued to learn of other similar incidents. Once B.K. took two bags of candy the Respondent used to reward good behavior and achievement by her students. Another teacher saw B.K. distributing the candy to classroom friends outside the classroom and reported it to the Respondent, who realized it was her candy that had gone missing. After the candy incident, the Respondent again met with B.K.’s parents and decided to impose consequences in addition to the classroom referral to discipline B.K. for the theft of the candy—namely, she decided to withhold the prize she planned to give students on Thursday, October 13, for good behavior during the preceding month. (Friday, October 14, was a day off school.) She told B.K.’s parents about the consequences she planned to impose. As October 13 approached, B.K. continued to misbehave by taking things that did not belong to her, including a Post-It note dispenser and a bag of erasers. The Respondent reported to the school guidance counselor and assistant principal that B.K.’s misbehavior seemed to be escalating. During the last class period of the day on October 13, while the class was working on a science project, the Respondent called each student up to her desk individually to reward good behavior with points, prizes, candy, and to identify misbehavior to be corrected. Under the “class dojo” behavior system the Respondent was using, class participation was rewarded with points and corresponding “karate” belts. Good behavior was rewarded with candy. When it was B.K.’s turn, the Respondent explained that she was getting points and a belt for class participation but was not getting candy because of her taking things that did not belong to her, and not telling the truth. The Respondent told B.K. that she would have a “clean slate” going forward and would get points and both prizes and candy if she earned them with good behavior in the next month. Not long after the Respondent’s talk with B.K., another student said out loud that B.K. had candy that did not belong to her. The Respondent asked B.K. if she had candy, and B.K. denied it. The Respondent then asked her students to check to see if they had the candy they had just been given. One student, who sat next to B.K. and had put her candy in her desk, said hers was missing. The Respondent then asked B.K., who still denied taking the candy, to show her what was in her desk. B.K. just froze and did not comply. The Respondent repeated herself. B.K. again refused and began to get emotional. Because the desk was a “jumbled mess” of tissues, papers, food, a milk carton, pencils and other things, and because bending down low was difficult for the Respondent, the Respondent tipped the desk over enough for some of items in it to begin falling out on the floor. The missing candy was among the first several items that fell out on the floor. At this point, B.K. claimed that the student whose candy was missing had given it to her, which the other student denied. The Respondent then told B.K. that the Respondent was going to have to write B.K.’s parents a note about the incident. She also told B.K. to pick her things up off the floor and put them back in her desk. During these proceedings, B.K. became emotional and started crying. At one point, she kicked at her desk or chair. The Respondent had her sit up near the chalkboard until she calmed down. The Respondent sat down at her desk facing B.K. and told her she was very disappointed with her because of the talk they just had. Although most of the students had resumed working on their science projects, one child asked out loud if B.K. had stolen the candy. The Respondent did not directly answer the question. Instead, she said something like, “I’m not sure what you just saw and heard, but one thing we don’t do in this class is, we don’t steal, right? What don’t we do?” Some of the students who were listening repeated, “we don’t steal.” When things settled back down, the Respondent wrote a note to B.K.’s parents notifying them about the candy incident and telling them that B.K.’s behavior that day had been “in the red” (i.e., bad). B.K. went back to sitting at her desk, and the rest of the class period was uneventful. In fact, the school principal came to the Respondent’s classroom before the class period ended to deliver notices for the students to take home to their parents. Although she was not in the classroom long, she noticed nothing unusual. At home after school on October 13, B.K.’s mother asked her about the Respondent’s note. B.K. denied stealing candy. She told her parents that the Respondent gave all the other children in the class candy except her and accused her of taking a piece of candy, which she denied. B.K. then told them that the Respondent then kicked her chair, dumped her desk on the floor, made her clean it up and put her desk back in order, and made the other students line up and take turns hitting her hand hard in punishment. Her parents decided to talk to the Shingle Creek principal about it on the next school day, which was Monday. When B.K. and her parents arrived at school on Monday morning, they encountered and talked to several of B.K.’s classmates outside the school. At least two of the classmates were approached by B.K., who brought them to her parents. The evidence was unclear as to how many other classmates were involved, or how the conversations went. The language skills of the students in general were those of second-graders, and several of the children were speakers of English as a second language. B.K.’s parents speak English with a strong Haitian accent. For example, the words “hit” and “hate” sound very similar, and it is not easy to understand their spoken English. It is unclear exactly what was said, but B.K.’s parents came away from the conversations convinced that B.K. was telling the truth about what happened in class on October 13. It is also possible that the children’s memories and recollections were influenced by these conversations. B.K.’s parents then went to speak to the school’s principal. B.K. did not go to class but stayed with her parents in the principal’s office. After talking to the family, the principal telephoned OCPS’s senior manager of employee relations, who advised her to gather witness statements. The principal and several assistants began taking statements, starting with B.K. and her parents. After them, the Respondent was called to the principal’s office. Following the instructions given to all teachers by the teacher union, the Respondent declined to give a written statement without a lawyer or union representative present. She did have a conversation with her principal. The principal asked her to explain the situation with B.K. on Thursday. The Respondent told her about the candy incident, including tipping the desk to find the candy; about being very disappointed with B.K.; and about writing a note to B.K.’s parents. The Respondent recalls the principal asking if anything else happened, and she answered, no. The principal recalled the conversation a bit differently. She thought the Respondent admitted to dumping B.K.’s desk over, raising her voice, and being angry with B.K. She also remembered asking the Respondent if any of the other students hit B.K. and the Respondent answering that she did not see anyone hit her. The principal then began interviewing the Respondent’s students one by one. The interviews continued the rest of the morning and into lunch recess. Some statements were taken the next day. It is unclear to what extent the student witnesses discussed their statements among themselves during the day. The interviews were not video or audio-recorded. The interviewers thought they were asking proper, open-ended questions that did not suggest answers, but studies have shown that interviews usually are not as proper or open-ended as interviewers think they are, especially when the interviewers do not have extensive training. The training of the principal and her assistants in interview techniques was limited. Proper interview techniques help ensure that witness memories and statements are authentic, accurate, and reliable. They are especially important for child witnesses. The statements were not verbatim, or close to verbatim. Two of the statements were written with difficulty by the second- graders themselves and were not very articulate. The rest were written by the adult interviewers and signed by the second- graders so the process would go faster. These statements were written in a summary or conclusory fashion, without much detail, and were similar to one another, suggesting that they were recording the answers to questions of particular interest to the adult interviewers. The statement forms themselves had spaces designated for the “Date of Infraction” and “Location of Infraction,” and had signature blocks that said: “I swear/affirm the above and/or attached statements are true and correct. I understand that providing false information is punishable under the Student Code of Conduct.” It is doubtful that the second- graders would have understood what that meant. Fourteen (all but one) of the statements said that the Respondent told the students to hit or slap B.K.’s hand or hands. Some added that B.K. was crying; some added that the Respondent told them to hit hard, or harder. One statement said they did it because B.K. took candy, one said it was because B.K. was a thief, and one said it was because B.K. steals too much. Some of the statements were surprising because of the capabilities of the child supposedly giving it: one of the students was non-verbal and would not have been comfortable speaking to a stranger; another was autistic and unable to sequence information such as the days of the week; and another had behavioral and emotional issues that made him incapable of giving a statement. Some of the second-graders added remarkable features in their statements that were not mentioned by anyone else, or by just a few: one said the Respondent threw B.K. down to the ground; three, including one attributed to the child with behavioral and emotional issues, said that the Respondent threatened to call the police; one said that the Respondent told B.K. to put her desk by the wall; and one said the Respondent told the class to avoid B.K. During the morning on October 17, several of the Respondent’s students told her that B.K.’s parents had talked to them before school about the Respondent making them hit or slap their child on the hand, and told her that B.K. no longer was in the Respondent’s class. After the second-graders’ statements were gathered, the school principal presented them to the OCPS senior manager of employee relations, who scheduled a pre-determination meeting on October 21. His investigative report stated: 16 student statements were obtained; 15 confirmed being directed by the teacher to hit B.K. on the hand; 3 confirmed the teacher telling the students to repeat “don’t steal”; 8 confirmed the teacher yelling; 5 confirmed the teacher telling them to hit B.K. hard; 3 confirmed the teacher calling B.K. a thief; and 3 confirmed the teacher saying she was going to call the police. The investigative report also stated that the Respondent: admitted getting angry and raising her voice; admitted pouring out the contents of the student’s desk; admitted saying and having the students repeat, “what is it we don’t do in class? We don’t steal”; stated she did not recall directing the students to hit B.K.; did not know if B.K. was hit “on October 17,” but did know that B.K. lies; and did not report the incident to the school administration on October 17. Based on the investigative report, OCPS terminated the Respondent’s employment. The Respondent filed a grievance which was arbitrated under the terms of the teacher union contract. When the matter was referred to the Petitioner, another investigation was conducted. On February 17, 2017, the second- graders were interviewed again by the Petitioner’s investigator. The investigator asked the questions and wrote the answers. The second-graders were asked to confirm that the answers were written down correctly and signed their statements. Like the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator believed she asked non-suggestive, open-ended questions. Like the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator did not have extensive training in the proper techniques for manner of interviewing children. Like the interviews conducted by the principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator did not video or audio-record her interviews. Each student interviewed by the Petitioner’s investigator stated that the Respondent told the students to “slap” B.K.’s on the hand as hard as they could and that slapping B.K. made the student feel “sad.” One said that B.K. cried. One said the Respondent made the class stand in a circle and take turns slapping B.K. on the hand. Unlike the school principal and her assistants, the Petitioner’s investigator had the students describe how hard they were supposed to hit B.K. on a scale of 1 to 5. This question elicited several responses that they were told to hit “hard,” one that they were told to hit “as hard as we could,” and one that gave a rating of 5. In the statements gathered by the Petitioner’s investigator, several of the students mentioned that the Respondent told them to pretend B.K. was a ghost, and several said the Respondent told them not to tell anyone about what happened. Oddly, neither of these remarkable details was mentioned in any of the statements taken by the principal and her assistants. The Respondent’s grievance was arbitrated in May 2017. After a three-day hearing, the termination was upheld, despite testimony from another teacher that she overheard B.K. admit to stealing candy and to lying to get the Respondent in trouble because she was tired of getting caught stealing by the Respondent. Several of the students who gave statements testified at both the arbitration hearing and the hearing in this case. Several were deposed before testifying. The Petitioner in her Proposed Recommended Order suggested that credibility issues arising from the prior events should be ignored because they were cured by the live testimony. That is not true. Issues remain as to whether the students’ live testimony was influenced by what preceded. In addition, their testimony at the hearing was confusing and inconsistent in many respects. Two of the students testified that the students formed a circle around B.K., while three said they formed a line. One said the line was in the shape of a C or J. One specified that they hit B.K.’s hand while she was either in a corner or by a desk where the sink was located. One said B.K. was standing in front of another student’s desk. Two said B.K. was standing in the middle of the classroom. One said B.K.’s hand was held out palm down. Another said it was palm up. One said the Respondent held B.K.’s hand out. The evidence, taken as a whole, is not clear and convincing that the Respondent had her students hit or slap B.K. as punishment for taking the candy. While several children made statements that included some version of this alleged incident, they all started with B.K., who was overheard saying she was lying, and the other children’s statements are fraught with questions that make them unreliable and insufficient to prove those facts clearly and convincingly. Meanwhile, the Respondent’s version of what happened, while self-serving, is more persuasive. Her refusal to give a written statement, and her manner of answering questions, may have raised suspicions on the part of the school principal, and may have contributed to a number of misunderstandings by the principal and B.K.’s parents, but they do not prove that the Respondent was lying. The Respondent’s conduct that was proven by the evidence did not rise to the level of a disciplinable failure to make reasonable effort to protect B.K. from conditions harmful to learning and/or to her mental and/or physical health and/or safety, and did not intentionally expose B.K. to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. What the Respondent actually did was within the realm of making reasonable efforts to correct B.K.’s problem behaviors and to teach her and her classmates how to behave properly and acceptably, while at the same time trying to keep order in the classroom and continue delivering academic instruction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 1st day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assigned to the school system's opportunity school program.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, Guillermmo Hernandez, was an eighth grade student assigned to South Miami Middle School. While in math class during November, 1988 through January, 1989, Respondent was disruptive in the classroom, tardy on several occasions and unprepared for class. In an attempt to ascertain the reasons for his behavior and to assist him, Respondent's parents were consulted, Respondent was consulted, and Respondent was assigned to detention and work detail. Again, while in home economics class during February through March, 1989, Respondent disrupted the classroom by his antics which on one occasion included piercing his ear and dressing as a girl. Respondent also chased other students, popping them with towels. Here too, his parents were consulted, Respondent was consulted and he was assigned to both outdoor and indoor supervision. Respondent is a disturbed young man who at first appears to be a class clown. He pushes a situation until is becomes a problem and then begs for forgiveness. Further, he does not appear to be learning disabled. However, after repeated attempts to help him, it is apparent that he is unable to control himself in a regular classroom and would benefit from a more structured setting such as the opportunity school program of the Dade County School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida issue a Final Order affirming the assignment of Respondent to school system's opportunity school program. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mr. and Mrs. Juan Hernandez 6361 S.W. 33rd Street Miami, Florida 33155 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Trayvis Taylor entered Miami Lakes Junior High School for the summer school session 1983. On August 17, 1983, he was seen throwing rocks at another student. When the counselor intervened, his glasses were broken in the scuffle. For the remainder of the 1983-84 school year and for that portion of the 1984-85 school year that Trayvis attended Miami Lakes, he was involved in numerous incidents of insubordination, lack of self-control, disrespect, disruptive behavior, fights, skipping class, tardiness, failure to follow class and school rules, lying, feeling girls' buttocks (twice), using socially unacceptable language, rudeness, and defiance. He did not make friends and appeared to lack the social skills to do so. He received unsatisfactory (D-F) grades in most classes. School administrators and teachers met with Trayvis' parents and counseled Trayvis in an effort to assist him. School officials have used progress reports in an attempt to communicate Trayvis' progress to his parents and to foster a cooperative effort. They have also made teacher changes and schedule changes in an attempt to help Trayvis' school adjustment. School officials have assigned detentions, indoor suspensions, and outdoor suspensions. They also recommended psychological testing, but Trayvis' mother rejected this. Trayvis has been placed in smaller remedial classes for reading, language arts and social studies. These efforts have been unsuccessful. On December 19, 1984, Trayvis was administratively assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School, an educational alternative program. Mrs. Taylor objected to this placement and in January 1985, unilaterally enrolled Trayvis at the Academy for Community Education ("Academy"), an experimental, semi- private, educational alternative program administered by the Dade County Public School System. Trayvis has shown improvement since his enrollment at the Academy. He is in a self-contained room with the same teacher for all of his academic subjects. He is taught totally on a remedial level in this highly structured, closely supervised classroom. He participates in a behavior modification program and is demonstrating progress. His attitude has improved, and he is now doing predominantly C work and has begun to make friends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order identifying Respondent as a disruptive student and assigning him to an educational alternative program; provided, however, that he be permitted to remain enrolled at the Academy for Community Education so long as he meets the requirements of that institution. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esq. 1450 N.E. Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 Mitchell Horwich, Esq. Education Advocacy Project Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. 149 West Plaza, Suite 210 7900 N.W. 27 Avenue Miami, Florida 33147-4796 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. Respondent began her teaching career with the Broward County School District in or around January 2002, at which time she was assigned to South Broward High School ("South Broward").2/ In or around 2006, Petitioner introduced a program known as "Post-Graduate Alternatives for Secondary Students" ("PASS program") to most of its high schools, including South Broward. As explained by various witnesses during the final hearing, the PASS program is designed to assist students with moderate to significant learning disabilities——all of whom are between the ages of 18 to 21 and have already received special high school diplomas——attain the highest possible level of independence. This is achieved by placing students in a variety of work experience sites (simulated at first in the classroom and later at actual work locations), providing instruction related to community living tasks (e.g., use of money, transportation, shopping), and working to improve the students' behavior and communication skills. Following its district-wide introduction in 2006, the PASS program underwent various refinements, which included the development of clear, well-defined "steps" for instructors to follow in their implementation of the program. "Step 1," for instance, requires a PASS teacher, who is supported by two classroom paraprofessionals, to create a minimum of five stations (or, in Petitioner's terminology, "zones") within the classroom, with each zone consisting of multiple tasks. Such stations can run the gamut from a "restaurant zone," where students learn, for example, to sort silverware, to a "laundry zone," where students are taught to fold and hang clothing. Among other things, the PASS steps also require the teacher to: create specialized zone instructions for each of the approximately 10-12 students to which the PASS instructor is assigned; create schedules to govern the rotation of students from zone to zone; and collect data that tracks each student's performance on every assigned task, which is later used for "job matching" and to determine if the students are meeting the goals in their Transition Individualized Education Plans ("TIEPs"). As will be seen shortly, Respondent demonstrated a substantial lack of compliance with several of the PASS steps during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, most notably in the area of data collection; it is upon that particular failing that the ensuing factual recitation will largely focus. 2010-2011 School Year Prior to the start of the 2010-2011 academic year, Respondent was provided with a document titled, "PASS Process Implementation Steps & Expectations," which plainly instructed, inter alia, that PASS teachers record data (at least one time per week) for each student and for every task to which the student was assigned. The document read: STEP 1: IDENTIFY ZONES Arrange furniture/physical space for zones All zones clearly defined and labeled Minimum of 5 zones/areas 1:1 zone/area defined STEP 2: DETERMINE TASKS PER ZONE At least 3-5 tasks in each zone to start; increase number of tasks as they are mastered Construct tasks for the zones – both high and low level Age appropriate materials must be used; nothing that's typically seen in elementary classrooms Variety of instructional methods used STEP 3: DEVELOP THE MASTER SCHEDULE Implement the Master Schedule Master Schedule/zone assignments are based on [each students' transition individualized education plan or "TIEP"] STEP 4: DEVELOP THE ZONE PROFILES Post a Zone Profile in every zone; zone profile shows, at a glance, which student should be in the zone at what particular time. STEP 5: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT STAFF SCHEDULES Teacher and paraprofessional schedules are complete Schedule shows coverage for each zone STEP 6: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ZONE BINDERS WITH TASK INSTRUCTIONS Individualized task instructions for every task and every student in every zone (includes written instructions for readers/visual instructions for nonreaders) STEP 7: DEVELOP INDIVIDUAL DAILY STUDENTS SCHEDULES Create master individual schedules for students Implement Daily Independent Individual Student Schedule; student is following their individual schedule and going to zone that is stated on their schedule at their own individual pace Students rotating from zone to zone independently by following their individual daily schedule Students do schedule review at the end of the day for the next day; teacher/para checks for accuracy Students meaningfully engaged in zones STEP 8: COMPLETE STUDENT ASSESSMENTS Complete comprehensive vocational assessment(s) Complete specific behavior assessments (each task, for each student, for each zone, each week) Evidence of data collection Evidence of individual student binders to contain record keeping Evidence that staff is implementing students' TIEP STEP 9: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT [Community Based Instruction "CBI"] PROCESS Sites based on TIEP and student assessments Classroom zones based on CBI/Community sites Individualized student schedules created for each CBI site Preparation of students before CBI Follow-up CBI's CBI schedule posted 3-4 students maximum at any given site (emphasis added). As established during the final hearing, the school district did not simply disseminate the foregoing steps to Respondent and leave her to her own devices. On the contrary, Respondent——who previously received formal PASS training from the school district——was provided with significant support throughout the 2010-2011 school year from Ms. Wendy Barnes, a PASS program transition instructor. Nevertheless, evidence of Respondent's noncompliance with the PASS steps was evident by early October 2010. Indeed, a classroom observation on October 5, 2010, by Ms. Barnes and Deborah Kearns (an assistant principal at South Broward and Respondent's immediate supervisor) revealed no evidence of data collection, contrary to Step Eight of the PASS program. In addition, the observers discovered a more fundamental problem in that the zone instruction binders were incomplete and not individualized for the students. Subsequently, on October 14, 2010, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss her noncompliance with the PASS program and to develop a plan to correct the shortcomings. At the conclusion of the meeting, Respondent was: advised that she was being placed on a cycle of assistance, whereby she would be provided with written directives on a weekly basis by Ms. Kearns; informed that she would continue to receive support from Ms. Barnes, who would assist her in complying with the directives; and provided with a memorandum from Ms. Kearns, which emphasized, among other things, that her "failure to implement and demonstrate improvements throughout this cycle of assistance may result in [her] placement on a Professional Development Plan." Owing perhaps to the sheer impracticability of ordering Respondent to bring all PASS steps into immediate compliance, Ms. Barnes instead directed, in a memorandum dated October 20, 2010, that Respondent correct Step Two (and only Step Two) within the next six days. In relevant part, the memorandum read: On 10/19/10, Ms. Barnes assisted you with regard to Step 2 of the PASS process Implementation Expectations. As discussed at that time, PASS Step 2 requires that zone binders and individual zone tasks reflect the following: Students must be assigned at least 3-5 activities per zone. Students must be assigned an amount and level of zone activities to maintain engagement during the period scheduled within each zone. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are [] varied by level and challenging based upon individual student ability and need. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are appropriate . . . . You are directed to bring these aspects of Step 2 of the PASS program into compliance by October 26, 2010. Unfortunately, Respondent failed to satisfy this reasonable——and modest——directive, as Ms. Kearns and Ms. Barnes discovered during an observation of Respondent's classroom on October 26, 2010. In response, Ms. Barnes issued a memorandum to Respondent the following day, wherein she directed Respondent to bring "item three" of Step Two (i.e., assign zone tasks of varying difficulty based upon student ability), as well as Steps Three and Four, into compliance by November 2, 2010. Ms. Barnes' ample and appropriate support efforts notwithstanding, Respondent brought only one of the PASS steps (Step One) into compliance by mid-December, a fact that was confirmed during a classroom observation on December 14, 2010. Ms. Kearns discussed this issue with Respondent during a pre- disciplinary conference held the following day, at which time Respondent admitted that she had "muddled" the implementation of the PASS steps. Two days later, on December 17, 2010, Ms. Kearns warned Respondent in writing that her continued failure to implement the PASS steps might result in further disciplinary action. As the 2010-2011 school year progressed, Respondent's failure to implement the PASS steps——particularly the step related to data3/ collection——continued in spite of frequent classroom visits, numerous memoranda4/ and emails, and regular meetings5/ with Ms. Kearns, Ms. Barnes, and Ms. Aldridge. Ultimately, on April 5, 2011, Ms. Kearns provided written notification to Respondent that she was being placed on a 90-day Performance Development Plan ("PDP") due to deficiencies in the areas of lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation (i.e., assessments and data collection). The PDP, which was drafted during a meeting held the same date (attended by Ms. Kearns, Respondent, the school principal, and a union representative), articulated the corrections Respondent was required to make, various strategies for improvement, and the assistance with which Respondent would be provided. With respect to the issue of data collection, for example, the PDP contemplated that by September 19, 2011, Respondent would be required to demonstrate mastery of the requirement that she "collect and record quantitative data for each task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis." The PDP further provided that Ms. Barnes and/or Ms. Aldridge would work with Respondent to improve her data collection methods. (At Respondent's request, this portion of the PDP was amended on May 31, 2011, to read that only "District Personnel and/or Shalita Aldridge" would assist her.) On April 11, 2011, less than one week after the creation of the PDP, Ms. Barnes met with Respondent (for one hour) to review and discuss proper data collection methods. Despite this meeting and the subsequent provision of ample support, Respondent's failure to collect proper data——and comply with numerous other PASS steps——persisted: on April 27, 2011, Ms. Kearns noticed during a classroom observation that Respondent was still not collecting weekly data for each task and, further, that the data she had collected was not measureable; on May 3, 2011, Ms. Barnes and Ms. Kearns examined a sample of recent data sheets, which revealed that Respondent's data entries were vague and not recorded separately by task type; on May 16, 2012, during a classroom visit by Alan Strauss (South Broward's principal) and Louis Ruccolo (a transition supervisor with the district), it was observed that six PASS steps were out of compliance, including data collection; and, on May 19, 2011, a one-hour classroom observation by Ms. Kearns uncovered myriad data collection issues, which included, with respect to one particular student, zero "office zone" data entries during the preceding six weeks. Respondent's continued noncompliance resulted, not surprisingly, in the issuance of several reprimands by Ms. Kearns. The first, provided to Respondent in writing on May 12, 2011, was based upon her repeated failure to comply with time- bound directives; the second, issued in early June of 2011, disciplined Respondent for her lack of adherence to "directives relative to student supervision." On or about June 10, 2011, Ms. Kearns issued a memorandum to Respondent that discussed, in painstaking detail, what would be expected of her during the following school year. Among other things, the memorandum advised Respondent that she would be required, effective August 22, 2011, to "utilize the specific data collection tools that are named in [her] PDP," including but not limited to weekly zone task data. Respondent was further informed, accurately as it turns out, that "District support will continue to be provided . . . during the school year and will begin the week of August 15, 2011." 2011-2012 School Year At the outset of the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Strauss provided Respondent with two memoranda. The first, dated August 16, 2012, recounted Respondent's shortcomings during the preceding academic year, which included her failure to "collect and maintain consistent and quantitative data through specific zone task data collection." The second, which Respondent received on August 22, 2011, reminded her that her PDP (initiated on April 1, 2011) had carried over from the previous year and would expire on September 13, 2011; Respondent was further advised that the performance evaluation to be conducted upon the expiration of her PDP would be drafted under the assessment system in effect during the 2010-2011 school year. Pursuant to the School Board's evaluation system (known as the Instructional Personnel Assessment System or "IPAS"), teachers are rated (satisfactory, in need of improvement, or unsatisfactory) in ten areas: instructional planning; lesson management; lesson presentation; communication; classroom management; behavior management; records management; subject matter knowledge; "other professional competencies"; and student performance evaluation. On September 19, 2011, Ms. Khandia Pinkney——an assistant principal at South Broward, who assumed the duties of Ms. Kearns——issued Respondent's evaluation for the 2010-2011 school year. In the evaluation, Ms. Pinkney awarded Respondent satisfactory ratings in seven of the performance areas, while the remaining three (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation) were deemed unsatisfactory. In light of her failure to achieve satisfactory ratings in all ten performance areas, Respondent was issued an overall performance rating of unsatisfactory. Although Respondent's poor evaluation could have resulted in the initiation of termination proceedings, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Pinkney elected instead to place Respondent on a new, 90-day PDP. The second PDP, which was drafted with Respondent's collaboration on September 19, 2011, listed 14 specific deficiencies (e.g., "collect and record quantitative data for every task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis") that Respondent was required to correct by January 10, 2012. In accordance with the terms of the second PDP, Respondent received considerable support and supervision as the school year progressed. Such support included twice-weekly visits by Ms. Shaneka President (a district-level transition teacher) to Respondent's classroom, as well as weekly follow-up e-mails that emphasized, among various issues, the necessity of proper data collection.6/ Respondent's data collection issues persisted; in light of this continued failing, as well as several other concerns, Ms. Pinkney drafted a written recommendation, dated October 17, 2011, that Respondent be suspended from work for three days.7/ In pertinent part, the recommendation read: On 10/13/2010 you received a summary memo, on 12/17/2010 you received a written warning, on 3/01/2011 you received a verbal reprimand, and on 5/12/2011 and 6/10/2011 you received written reprimands. All notifications were regarding the concern with your failure to follow directives. You have failed to meet the performance standards required of your position as a teacher. Specifically, you have failed to follow directives relative to leaving campus without administrative approval, following time-bound directives, directives relative to student supervision by failing to properly supervise you SVE students, utilizing instructional time for personal activities such as smoking and personal phone calls, and not following procedural directives. . . . Your repeated failure to follow directives is a serious breach of conduct that cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am recommending that your name be sent before the School Board . . . for a 3-day suspension. Petitioner's receipt of the foregoing memorandum did not spur her into compliance: two days later, on October 19, 2011, Mr. Ruccolo and Ms. Pinkney conducted an observation of Petitioner's classroom, during which they noticed——among other deficiencies——instances of incomplete8/ and/or inaccurate data.9/ The observed deficiencies were discussed with Respondent during a meeting with Ms. Pinkney on October 25, 2011, and further outlined in a memorandum issued to Respondent two days later. During the ensuing four weeks, Ms. President continued to remind Respondent, in writing and on no fewer than four occasions, of the requirement to record data "for every task for every student in every zone on a weekly basis."10/ Respondent, however, failed to heed this guidance——as Mr. Strauss learned during a classroom observation of Respondent's classroom on December 1, 2011. On that occasion, Mr. Strauss and an intern principal (Ms. Cherie Hodgson-Toeller) uncovered numerous data collection issues, each of which was discussed with Respondent during a meeting on December 5, 2011, as well as detailed in a memorandum provided to Respondent the following week. The memorandum read, in relevant part: We also pointed out that [student "Sa."] had no data in her binder with respect to her performance in the Office zone. We discussed that no data was reflected in the binders for the current week and commented that the data recorded in the binders was lacking uniformity and data recorded did not provide[] comparison details to determine the students['] current percentage of correct completions while performing the task or indicate whether or not they are making adequate progress. . . . It was also discussed that we witnessed a lot of confusion in the classroom and inconsistencies in monitoring, scheduling, and tracking of data continue to exist. (emphasis added). Over the next four weeks, Respondent's issues with data collection persisted, and, in at least one regard, worsened. During an observation of Respondent's class on January 3, 2012, Ms. Pinkney discovered that no data had been recorded for one particular student in the "restaurant zone"; with respect to another student, Ms. Pinkney noted, troublingly, that "restaurant zone" data had been recorded for a date (December 15, 2011) that the student had been absent. The cause of the latter discrepancy, as established by Ms. Riley's credible testimony, was a directive to Ms. Riley from Respondent to manufacture data entries (after the fact) to create the appearance of proper data collection. As Ms. Riley explained during the final hearing: There were times [when] I was uncomfortable. Ms. Liquori would say, well, Ms. Presidente [sic] and them are coming on Monday, or, they are coming this and such date, so you need to go ahead and put your data in. And there was a time where she asked me to put in data for a student that had not been in school for three weeks. And I told her, I said, I don't think that we are supposed to be doing that. I know that's not right for us to do that. But because you are my supervisor and teacher, then I have to follow orders from my supervising teacher. Q. So, if I understand correctly then, Ms. Liquori instructed you to put in data on a student that wasn't present. A. That is correct. Q. And that was false data. A. Right. And there was [sic] times where we would have to put down a student mastered a task when we know that the student had not mastered that task. Q. Why would Ms. Liquori make you do that? A. Because data needs to be put in before Ms. Presidente [sic] and them would come in. Because when they come in they did the observations. (emphasis added). A meeting was thereafter scheduled for January 12, 2012, during which Ms. Pinkney intended to close Respondent's PDP and draft an unfavorable performance evaluation. From what can be gleaned from the record, however, the meeting was postponed by virtue of Respondent's placement on medical leave. The meeting was ultimately convened on April 26, 2012, at which time Ms. Pinkney issued a written performance evaluation that rated Respondent unsatisfactory in three performance areas (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation——the same categories that were rated unsatisfactory during the previous evaluation), satisfactory in the other seven areas, and unsatisfactory overall. Petitioner has demonstrated by a greater weight of the evidence that Respondent's failure to collect appropriate PASS data, a deficiency that persisted for more than one and one-half school years, constituted a willful neglect of her duties. In so finding, it is notable: that the data collection tasks Respondent was directed to perform were uncomplicated and reasonable in nature; that Respondent received adequate training concerning the PASS program prior to the 2010-2011 school year, as well as substantial levels of support and guidance during each school year at issue; and that Respondent never indicated, at any point during the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 school years, that she did not understand her obligations or was unable to perform them.11/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 8th day of February, 2013.
The Issue By letter dated December 17, 1984, Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, advised the mother of Respondent, Torrey Sherwin Davis, that Respondent was being administratively assigned to an educational alternative program at Jann-Mann Opportunity School- North effective upon receipt of the letter because of Respondent's "disruption of the educational process in the regular school program and failure to adjust to the regular school program." Thereafter, Respondent's mother timely requested a hearing to contest this assignment.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Torrey Sherwin Davis (Torrey), was a sixth grader at Rainbow Park Elementary School in Dade County, Florida, during school year 1984-85. The school is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner, School Board of Dade County. While attending Rainbow Park, Torrey exhibited disruptive behavior on a number of occasions. The dates of such behavior and a detailed description of the same are set forth in detail in Petitioner's exhibit 1 received in evidence. They include pushing, hitting and biting other students both in and out of the classroom, yelling and disrupting classes during periods of instruction, being rude and disrespectful to teachers, and "feeling" female students. Torrey has been repeatedly counseled by teaching personnel regarding his conduct, and at least two or three teacher-parent conferences were held by school officials with Torrey's father. This counseling failed to produce a change in his behavior. Respondent's conduct become so disruptive by December, 1984, that Torrey was unable to function properly in a normal school environment. After a careful assessment of his academic progress and behavior by school officials, Petitioner reassigned Torrey on December 17, 1984, to Jann-Mann Opportunity School- North effective immediately. He has remained there since that time. Although Respondent's mother contended that Torrey was "picked on" by his teacher, periodic monitoring of Torrey's classes by the school's assistant principal dispelled the validity of this claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining that Respondent be placed in an educational alternative program. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Mary Davis 1500 N.W. 154th Street Opa Locka, Florida 33054 Mark A. Valentine, Esq. Suite 800, 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent used inappropriate discipline techniques when he pushed an unruly student against a wall and back into his seat, in violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. If so, an additional issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educators Certificate No. 725455. He is an assistant principal at Riverview High School. He has been a teacher for 18 years. He is in his seventh year in the Sarasota County School District. Prior to his employment with Sarasota County, Respondent was a physical education teacher and then an assistant principal in Illinois. He has never previously been the subject of disciplinary action. The principal at Riverview High School testified that Respondent enjoys good rapport with the students. Respondent is required to deal with disciplinary issues, and the principal testified that he has always done so professionally. The principal testified that Respondent maintains his composure when disciplining students. The Administrative Law Judge credits the testimony of the principal. On February 20, 1998, Respondent was summoned to a classroom being taught by Francis J. Baad, a teacher since 1948. A substitute teacher, Ms. Baad was teaching a freshman English class that had become disruptive, so she asked someone to summon an administrator to her room. Ms. Baad was showing a film of Romeo and Juliet. Part of the class was trying to watch the film, but part of the class was misbehaving. Several students were talking loudly, and one student was playing with a red laser pointer. The misbehaving students ignored repeated entreaties from Ms. Baad to settle down. When she threatened to summon an administrator, some of the students told her that she could not do so. When Respondent entered the classroom, the students quieted down. Respondent asked Ms. Baad to tell him the names of the students who had been misbehaving. Identification was slowed by Ms. Baad's unfamiliarity with the names of the students and the fact that several students had sat in seats assigned to other students and had given wrong names. As Respondent was writing down the names of the students who had disrupted the class, C. H. objected to the listing of another student, G. B., whom C. H. claimed had done nothing wrong, even though Ms. Baad had named him as one of the students who had misbehaved. Respondent replied to C. H. that it was none of his business. C. H. rose from his seat, and Respondent told him to sit down. Instead, C. H. said that he did not have to listen and began to walk up the aisle to leave the classroom. Respondent stepped toward C. H. and told him to return to his seat and be quiet. C. H. replied that Respondent could not tell him what to do. Saying, "Yes, I will tell you what to do," Respondent approached C. H. and backed him to his desk. Respondent then grabbed C. H.'s arms or shoulders and forced him down to his seat. At one point, Respondent threatened to call the school resource officer and have C. H. arrested. However, Respondent never did so, nor did he or anyone else discipline C. H. for this incident. Instead, Respondent remained in the classroom until the bell rang. Respondent did not disrupt the classroom; he restored order to the classroom so that learning could take place. Respondent did not endanger C. H.'s physical health or safety. Respondent did not disparage C. H. Respondent did not unnecessarily embarrass C. H.; C. H. embarrassed himself. Respondent gave C. H. every opportunity to behave himself. Rather than do so, C. H. unreasonably defied Respondent's authority.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 20th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Attorney Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Robert E. Turffs Brann & Turffs, P.A. 2055 Wood Street, Suite 206 Sarasota, Florida 34237
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Neil A. Merica, committed the offenses alleged to have begun in 1994 through 1999 as stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of the witnesses while testifying; the documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003); stipulations and arguments of the parties; and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant, material, and ultimate facts, arrived at impartially, based solely upon the extensive evidence adduced at the final hearing, are determined: Respondent's Qualification and Teaching Experiences Mr. Merica holds a degree in speech communication from the University of South Florida. He is also certified in specific learning disabilities (SLD) by that institution. Early in his 13-year tenure as a teacher at Foster Elementary School (Foster), he acquired a degree in computer science from Florida Metropolitan University. Mr. Merica holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 532934, covering areas of English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), SLD,2 and Speech. His Florida Educator's Certificate expired June 30, 2003. As of the date of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. Mr. Merica also holds a teaching certificate from New Hampshire. Mr. Merica has a very demonstrative and expressive personality. His voice, when speaking at his normal conversational tone, resounds from the back of his throat in a louder than average volume. During his testimony, the pitch of his voice and his rapid speech pattern was accompanied by an unexpected and sudden outburst of spastic energy. Hillsborough County School Board's "Pull-out" Classroom Policy In 1987, the Hillsborough County School Board (Board) operated a Pull-out Classroom Policy (Pull-out Policy) for SLD and Physically Impaired (PI) students. Pursuant to the Board's Pull-out Policy, SLD and PI students were pulled out of their regular classes, divided into various numbered groups, and sent to a designated "resource" class teacher during the school day. Respondent's Initial Teaching Assignment Under the Pull-out Policy in 1987-1988 Mr. Merica began teaching at Foster as a SLD resource class teacher in October 1987 when the Board's Pull-out Policy was in effect. A resource teacher is the teacher whose class consisted of SLD students who were "pulled out" of regular classes of non-SLD students and sent to a resource class consisting of all SLD students for teaching and instruction. In 1989, the Board changed its Pull-out Policy to a "Self- contained" Classroom Policy (Self-contained Policy). The Self- contained Policy was designed to keep all SLD students together in one identified class throughout the school year. Mr. Merica taught SLD students under the Self-contained Policy at Foster until the 1992-1993 school year. Beginning at the start of the 1992-1993 school year, Foster's administration assigned Mr. Merica to teach a resource class consisting of PI and Learning Disabled Resource (LDR) students. PI classes consisted of students with a variety of physical impairments, including students who required various assistance devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, braces and "talkers," a machine device that assists the student with speaking difficulties to communicate. Mr. Merica continued as a PI and LDR teacher from the 1992-1993 school year through the 1998-1999 school year. Foster Elementary Exceptional Student Education Student Population from 1998 to 2000 During the two-year period of the 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000 school years, Foster had a large exceptional student education (ESE) population among its general student population. Foster's ESE community population consisted of 22 units, composed of full-time ESE students. There were six units of mentally handicapped students, with mental handicaps ranging from severe and profound mentally handicapped to mild emotionally mentally handicapped. There were four units of autistic students and four units of PI students. Foster had approximately five units of early exceptional learning programs, and three units of SLD students. Policy Change to Self-Contained Classes in 1998-1999 During the fall of the 1998-1999 school year, the Board changed their Pull-out Policy for SLD and PI students to a Self- contained Policy. The Self-contained Policy was instituted because of the severity of the students' learning disabilities, their struggles with academics, and the administration's conviction that the daily routine of shifting the SLD and PI students from "regular class to resource class" did not sufficiently address the students' individual learning disabilities and individual educational needs. Foster's administration identified students whom they believed did not handle transition well and recommended them as candidates for self-contained classes. The primary objective of the administration was to provide more "direct teaching time" and "direct teaching services" to each SLD or PI student. In the self-contained classes, SLD and PI students were assigned to one class and one teacher with a teacher's aide and/or a Department of Education for Exceptional Students (DEES) attendant throughout the day. The teacher's aides were those persons who were permitted to assist, under the oversight of the teacher, the classroom teacher with all facets of teaching, instruction, and classroom control. The DEES attendants were those persons whose duties consisted primarily of assisting the teacher by attending to individual and personal needs of SLD and PI students, i.e. changing their clothing, providing restroom assistance, etc. Respondent's 1999-2000 Reassignment to Teach Self-contained SLD Class In mid 1998, Brenda Griffin (Principal Griffin) was appointed principal of Foster replacing Janice Payne, f/k/a Pils (Principal Payne). At the start of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin changed Mr. Merica from his PI and LDR class and assigned him to teach a self-contained class of SLD students. A self-contained SLD class is a class composed of SLD students, each of whom has an individual educational plan (IEP) designed as the teacher's guide to assist in teaching each student to achieve specific, individual, and predetermined educational goals. Each IEP is developed by joint agreement of the SLD student's parent, his/her teacher and the assigned therapist (teacher). The IEP also identifies special educational services and supports that may be necessary to achieve desired outcomes and short-term objectives, and it establishes student educational benchmarks. An IEP may or may not contain daily, weekly or monthly checklists to evaluate a student's progress in achieving the benchmarks contained in his or her IEP. To make an objective determination of whether a student with an IEP has made progress (advanced from or to an ascertainable educational position), knowledge of the educational benchmarks contained in the student's IEP are essential. During the earlier years as a teacher at Foster, Mr. Merica served as the school's Classroom Teacher's Association (CTA) representative. In this capacity, he would address and argue those issues he believed to have had direct impact upon teachers who were members of the CTA. Mr. Merica attributed many of the comments made during staff meetings to addressing issues he believed had an impact upon teacher members of the CTA. During the 1997-1998 school year and after lengthy discussions with Principal Payne, but before Principal Griffin was appointed principal, Mr. Merica resigned as CTA representative. In September of 2000 and after 13 years of annual employment contract renewals, the Board terminated Mr. Merica's employment. At the time of this proceeding, Mr. Merica had not exercised his right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. In this proceeding, the Commissioner seeks to permanently revoke Mr. Merica's right to renew his Florida Educator's Certificate. The Amended Administrative Complaint The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged specific instances of specific conduct, specific acts, and specific speech to have occurred at unspecified dates and at unspecified times during a five-year span of time from 1994 through 1999. Accordingly, only incidents specifically alleged and proven by evidence of record to have occurred on or after January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1999, are considered in determining whether the Commissioner proved each allegation charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. STATUTE VIOLATIONS Count 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has proved to be incompetent to teach or perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school. Count 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving mortal turpitude. Count 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Count 4: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession Prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS Count 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Count 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Count 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interfered with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination. WHEREFORE, Petitioner recommends that the Education Practices Commission impose an appropriate penalty pursuant to the authority provided in Sections 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes, which penalty may include a reprimand, probation, restriction of the authorized scope of practice, administrative fine, suspension of the teaching certificate not to exceed three years, permanent revocation of the teaching certificate, or combination thereof, for the reasons set forth herein, and in accordance with the Explanation and Election of Rights forms. Amendment to Amended Administrative Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error. On December 24, 2003, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Correct Scrivener's Error, which was granted and provided the following: On November 6, 2003, Petitioner Amended the Administrative Complaint in this matter. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint should be further amended to correct the scrivener's error. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint currently states: "During the 1998-99 school year, Respondent sexually harassed several different co- workers." That portion of Paragraph 5 should be amended to state: "Between 1994 and 1999, Respondent sexually harassed several different co-workers," to conform the time period for the allegations of Paragraph 5 with the time period for the allegations of all other paragraphs of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Janice Payne, Principal at Foster from 1987-1998 Principal Payne was principal at Foster from May 1987 to May 1998. An illness forced her to retire midyear in the 1997-1998 school year. After Principal Payne’s retirement, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. Principal Griffin held that position during the time of this hearing. During Principal Payne's 1987 to 1998 tenure as principal at Foster and as required by statute, she performed yearly evaluations of Mr. Merica's professional performance as a teacher of SLD and PI students. Consideration was given to annual performance evaluations for the 1994-1995 and 1998-1999 school years. During the 1994-1995 through 1997-1998 school years, Principal Payne identified, in her annual evaluations of Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, specific areas in which she independently determined Mr. Merica was in need of professional growth and improvement. At the end of each of those four evaluation periods, she met with Mr. Merica and discussed and identified for him those specific areas in which he was in need of professional growth and improvement. She provided him with specific, constructive advice and assistance to facilitate his professional growth and improvement as a professional teacher in the areas she identified. Undisputed evidence established that Mr. Merica accepted Principal Payne's constructive advice and assistance; he complied and implemented her suggestions in each area identified as in need of growth and improvement, and he grew and improved his performance in each identified area. It is noted, however, that Mr. Merica would sometimes suffer relapses and revert into his old pattern of voicing his personal opinions on a variety of subjects, described by Principal Payne as just: "talking up and rumoring everybody." Even with his propensity to occasionally "talk up and rumor everybody," Principal Payne concluded that he was a very good teacher and that he could be better. Principal Payne's methodology of assisting her young professional teachers' growth was to identify areas in need of improvement followed by personal conferences with each teacher explaining areas in need of improvement, making individualized suggestions tailored to the need(s) of the teacher, and, after an appropriate time interval, completing a follow-up assessment to evaluate the teacher's growth, improvement, and compliance with her suggestions. The record evidence demonstrated the existence of a professional and respectful relationship between Principal Payne and Mr. Merica, spanning the eight or more years they worked together, including the few occasions when there were disagreements. 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation of Mr. Merica In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE co-worker. Nevertheless, when Principal Payne evaluated his overall professional teaching performance for the 1998-1999 school year, including his personal conduct, she gave him a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments. Principal Payne made her independent written evaluation of Mr. Merica without assistance of any criteria or standards, other than as indicated on the evaluation form.3 In reaching her independent assessment of Mr. Merica's proficiency and effectiveness, scoring them on the characteristics and numerical scale indicated, she relied upon his teachings, his problems, and his improvements experienced. Her professional judgment of Mr. Merica was based upon her personal observation and day-to-day association with her teachers. Mr. Merica's 1998-1999 Performance Evaluation is the most accurate, reliable, and undisputed evidence of his competence and overall professional performance as a teacher during the 1998-1999 school year. There is no credible evidence of record that Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct evidencing either a past, an onset or a continuation of professional incompetence as a teacher in the school system during the 1998-1999 period covered by Principal Payne's annual evaluation. In response to the general inquiry of “whether or not her previous discussions and her prior improvement expectations of Mr. Merica as a teacher over the [unidentified] years were successful,” Principal Payne, convincingly, testified: Yes, temporarily, absolutely. My philosophy about Mr. Merica--first of all, he could be a good teacher if he wanted to be because I have observed him. I know that. He could behave if he wanted to. He could be a strong staff member. But, you know, he could do that probably for maybe four months or five months and all of a sudden it was just--he was just doing the same old thing, just going around, talking to everyone, rumoring people or getting rumors to people. It's just like this school was his life. Continuing, Ms. Payne testified: Mr. Merica would frequently apologize and realize what he had done was wrong, because at one time he's like a lamb and help to do whatever he can do and other times he just be so angry and upset to the point of where I said his behavior would frighten me. As the professional supervisor who worked with Mr. Merica for more than a ten-year period, Principal Payne was the most experienced and most knowledgeable person from years of hands-on experiences to have observed "the beginning of professional teaching incompetence that was not responsive to assistance provided by other professionals and continued unabated throughout her tenure." The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony and documentation of Principal Payne, "a beginning of demonstrated professional incompetence in 1994" or even as late as the school year of 1996-1997, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Based on the testimony of Principal Payne, it is a reasonable inference, and I infer, that the "behavior of anger" sometimes demonstrated by Mr. Merica in Principal Payne's presence was directed toward the subject matter of "what he had done was wrong" and not directed toward the person of Principal Payne. Through the above testimony, the Commissioner failed to prove that between 1994 and 1998-1999, Respondent was insubordinate and confrontational towards Principal Payne during her tenure as principal. The Commissioner failed to prove the allegation that Mr. Merica's personal conduct began to demonstrate "incompetence" as a professional teacher during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year of the 1997-1998 school years while Principal Payne was principal of Foster. A review of the record demonstrated, and the undersigned so finds, that no other witness called by the Commissioner provided credible, material and substantive evidence, based on personal knowledge contradicting the testimony of Principal Payne, that related to Mr. Merica's professional "teaching skills" during the period of the 1994-1995 through mid-year 1997-1998 school years. Brenda Griffin Principal at Foster Elementary beginning in 1998 After the 1997-1998 midyear resignation of Principal Payne, the Board appointed Principal Griffin as principal of Foster. The professional relationship between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica became tense, and, based upon the collective testimonies of teachers and administrative staff members hereinafter, the tension was known by both the professional staff and administrative employees at Foster Elementary. Principal Griffin recalled that during her first year as principal at Foster (approximately the latter half of the 1997-1998 school year), she made an unannounced visit to Mr. Merica's self-contained classroom of PI students. Recalling her visit, she testified: [T] hey [students], all had IEPs that have specific goals for each student and what I observed was group instruction, but I felt like the PI students were not being stimulated. (Emphasis added) There is no record evidence of the particular teaching materials being used by Mr. Merica during this single visit. There is no record evidence establishing ascertainable professional expectations or teaching standards below which Mr. Merica was performing during Principal Griffin's initial visit. There is no record evidence of specific educational benchmarks or educational goals contained in the PI students' IEPs. Within the situational circumstances of this one visit as testified to, Principal Griffin's conclusiory opinion that Mr. Merica's "PI students were not being stimulated" lacks an objective benchmark for evaluation, as well as any reasonable degree of reliability to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the matter sought to be established. Continuing, Principal Griffin testified: Mr. Merica would go to the board, where there may or may not have been written some vocabulary words, and he would start some kind of instruction and I felt that was because I was in the room--sometimes the aides would get up to work with the kids and sometimes not, and I was sure they were waiting on the direction from their teacher at that time. (Emphasis added) Principal Griffin recalled another separate incident, but omitted providing the month or year, when she "observed Mr. Merica sitting at his computer--she "did not know what he was doing at his computer"--but she had been in his classroom on a previous (unidentified time) occasion when a golf game was on the computer and she--"knows that he was not tending to the students." Principal Griffin's conclusions, her feelings, and her opinions in findings 24 and 26 herein above, minus evidence of the situational circumstances surrounding each incident, lack reasonable reliability to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin also recalled (unspecified) occasion(s) on which she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom. She characterized those observations as having seen Mr. Merica: verywhere- in the hallways, in the lunchroom, at the PE field, in the back of the school--in the ESE wing building, where the buses are for the kids, in the clinic, in the office, everywhere-at any period of time during the day. There is no record evidence of personal knowledge by the witness or evidence of the situation and/or circumstances that caused Mr. Merica to be outside his classroom on those occasions when he was observed by this witness. The witness' summary characterization, "everywhere-at any period of time during the day," lacks certainty, reasonableness, and a degree of believable reliability to produce a firm belief as to the accuracy of the matters to which she testified. Viewed most favorably, Principal Griffin's testimony failed to establish that on each of those occasions she observed Mr. Merica outside his classroom; his presence outside his classroom was not within the scope of his professional responsibilities and duties as a professional staff member at Foster. The credibility of this witness is further diminished by her exaggerated testimony of facts at issue. This testimony and the intended inference that his absence from his classroom caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning, lack essential details to provide a reasonable degree of reliability and cast insurmountable doubt as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Principal Griffin testified she talked with Mr. Merica about not being in his classroom and he told her: [H]e needed a break or that it was his break time and that his aides were in the classroom and they were capable of instructing his students. Mr. Merica disputed and denied making the particular statement, i.e. "that his aides were capable of instructing his students." His version of the reason(s) for absences from his classroom were reasonable explanations(s) corroborated by other witnesses as found infra. Even if Mr. Merica's denial of the inferred accusation is unbelievable, it does not prove the accusation by the Commissioner to the contrary. The acceptable and unacceptable reasons or situations a teacher may or may not be out of his or her classroom, and personal knowledge of those unacceptable occasions that Mr. Merica was not in his classroom, were not established through the testimony of Principal Griffin. The evidence does not support the frequency or extent of her assertions but, instead, casts doubt on the accuracy of the witness' testimony. The Commissioner failed to prove through the testimony of this witness that on each occasion Mr. Merica was observed outside his classroom, his presence was unreasonable, unprofessional, and caused a direct and negative impairment on his students' learning. Principal Griffin testified, unconvincingly, regarding another incident (again with no record evidence of the month, school year or the situational circumstances) that "a mother" called her to bring to her attention "that the teacher was not using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The witness did not provide the mother's identity. The witness did not provide the child's identity. The witness did not provide the teacher's identity though those three persons were allegedly involved in this undocumented incident. The presumed inference(s) that Mr. Merica was "the teacher" referred to by the unidentified mother, who (inappropriately) disciplined "a child" by taking away the unidentified child's touch-talker, is unreasonable. The vague, non-specific testimony of this witness, and her inability and/or her refusal to identify the mother, the child, and the teacher, create an unacceptable level of credibility due to the absence of three significant points of identity. The credibility of this witness' testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony by other witnesses, and the witness' credibility disappeared because no recording was made of such an important call from a parent to the principal of a school. The testimony by this witness does not establish or corroborate other testimony regarding the issue of "some teacher using the touch-talker in the classroom and at one point took it away from the child as part of a discipline." The Commissioner, through the testimony of this witness, failed to demonstrate that Mr. Merica "inappropriately disciplined a student," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The testimony of this witness, based solely on debatable expressions as her personal "feelings" and personal "opinions" regarding alleged conduct in the past reflected in findings 24 through 32 herein above, viewed most favorably, lacked reasonable reliability and substantial weight to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Respondent's 1998-1999 Personnel Performance Evaluation At the end of the 1998-1999 school year and notwithstanding her testimony in findings numbered 24 through 32 above, Principal Griffin, independently, determined that Mr. Merica's overall professional teaching performance, to include his personal conduct and, by reasonable and objective implication, his teaching competence, was satisfactory in every category for the 1998-1999 school year. The overall "satisfactory" performance evaluation given Mr. Merica by Principal Griffin for his professional teaching competence and personal conduct in the 1998-1999 school year is significant when juxtaposed to her testimony at the final hearing. As late as May 1999, this witness' independent evaluation of Mr. Merica's professional teaching competence and his personal conduct was reflected on his 1998-1999 performance evaluation as "all satisfactory." However, the testimony contained in Findings of Fact 24 through 32 in this 2004 proceeding is a direct contradiction. This aspect of the witness' 2004 testimony and written 1999 evaluation raised substantial issues of the witness' intent and cast insurmountable doubt on the witness' credibility. The lack of consistency in opinion and the ambiguity created by the 2004 testimony of conduct having occurred from pre-termination to post-termination are resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Mr. Merica's competence as a teacher, his teaching skills, classroom management, and student discipline, as evaluated and determined by Principal Griffin, for the 1998-1999 school year, ending May to June 1999, is the more substantial, reliable, and persuasive indicator of his past performance and competence as a professional teacher during the preceding 1998-1999 school year. Debora Bragdon, Secretary to Principals Payne and Griffin Debora Bragdon testified that during the 1999-2000 school year (ending May to June 2000), Mr. Merica came into the administrative office a minimum of once and "sometimes" twice a day, depending upon the day. According to Secretary Bragdon: Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin had discussions in the principal's office a minimum of once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year. Secretary Bragdon could not recall the subject matter discussed nor did she recall hearing Principal Griffin's voice at any time during the alleged daily office discussions. Mr. Merica's voice, however, she heard stating that "Mr. Merica would be screaming so loud that I could hear him clearly." However, she could not recall a word or phrase spoken by Mr. Merica. Secretary Bragdon did not enter the principal's office when Mr. Merica and Principal Griffin were having their daily conferences. Secretary Bragdon surmised, from the tone of Mr. Merica's voice only, that Principal Griffin was in danger. Secretary Bragdon further testified that during those daily conferences she would buzz Principal Griffin on the intercom asking if she needed assistance, and Principal Griffin repeatedly assured her that "she did not need assistance." Principal Griffin did not corroborate or confirm Secretary Bragdon’s testimony on the issue "once and sometimes twice a day throughout the entire school year she had discussions with Mr. Merica in her office." Any reasonable consideration of Secretary Bragdon's above recollection requires acceptance of the fact that a minimum of 180 (once a day) to a maximum of 360 (sometimes twice a day) conferences occurred in Principal Griffin's office during the 1999-2000 school year between Principal Griffin and Mr. Merica. The intended inference that during each daily office conference, whether 180 times or more, Mr. Merica was always screaming at Principal Griffin while she sat silently in her office is rejected. Secretary Bragdon's exaggerated testimony lacks any appreciable degree of reasonableness, reliability or credibility. Her entire testimony failed to produce a firm or a precise belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, and the Commissioner failed to prove through this witness that Mr. Merica was confrontational and argumentative with Principal Griffin during unspecified conferences while in her office. Negative Statements Continuing, Secretary Bragdon testified, unconvincingly, regarding unidentified sounds she overheard on the intercom system: rom the sounds I overheard on the intercom system when Mr. Merica called the administrative office for help with control of his students,-not all the time but sometimes you could hear disorder, confusion, kids maybe not under control. (Emphasis added) From unidentified sounds she allegedly overheard on the intercom, Secretary Bragdon concluded that the sounds she heard were "disorder," and, from that, she inferred that the "kids were maybe not under control" in Mr. Merica's class. The intended inference that Mr. Merica's "student behavior management and student control" was not effective at unspecified times, alluded to by this testimony, is rejected for want of reasonable credibility. Secretary Bragdon's testimony in findings 33, 34, and 35 consisted of exaggerated and speculative conjectures. As such, her testimony was not substantial in specifics nor competent in knowledge to establish as fact the allegations testified to in findings 33, 34, and 35 hereinabove. Secretary Bragdon was secretary to both Principal Payne and Principal Griffin, but there is no record evidence of the school year the alleged intercom activities she purported to have overheard, and of which she testified, occurred. The Amended Administrative Complaint alleged misconduct during the period 1994 through 1999 (1999 ending December 31, 1999), not throughout 1999-2000. The ambiguity regarding the time period the alleged conduct occurred is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. Subversive Statements Secretary Bragdon also testified about a personal conversation between her and Mr. Merica "shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing."4 Although she could not remember the day, month or year, she specifically recalled: I was in the cafeteria getting coffee and Neil was also in the cafeteria. He brought his children in there to have breakfast. And he was up at the same table that I was and he basically just said that, you know, - - everybody was basically talking about it and I don't know word for word, but basically what he said was it would be good if we could do something like that here, but we just have to make sure the administration are in the building. This statement, if true, demonstrated, at its worst, bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When considered within the context (everybody was talking-about it), circumstances (just after the news report of the occurrence), and the location (at a table in the cafeteria) with everyone talking, the alleged statement does not evidence a manifested "subversive" intent of Mr. Merica, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Sectary Bragdon's demeanor, attitude, and manner of responding to questions seemed calculated to provide little light on the substantive facts of the situation, but rather an exaggerated version of the nature and circumstances of the incidents. I find the testimony of Secretary Bragdon unworthy of reliance upon as a true foundation to support findings of fact as to the matters testified to hereinabove. Negative Attitude Toward Administration Statements Cynthia Blake, a DEES attendant at Foster from 1985 to 2002, testified regarding "statements" allegedly made by Mr. Merica that demonstrated his negative attitude (state of mind) toward the school administration. When asked the following question: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration," Ms. Blake gave the following answer: Well, there was a lot and sometimes he would just walk away. He did not want to hear it. He would walk behind me, say it again, and would say, you know, be careful or whatever and it never changed. At this one given time, we was just outside and I was watching some kids, I think, and he came up and they was painting the school and he just said that ought to get all the kids out of the school and blow the school up and leave the administration in the school. During her earlier deposition, Ms. Blake was asked: "[W]hat comments were made or what comments have you overheard that would support your belief that Mr. Merica had a negative attitude about the administration?" As seen below, her response then differed from her present testimony. Q. Do you remember a situation where Mr. Merica said something about blowing up the school? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me about that? A. Well, we at some point always told Neil, you know, to you know, you'd better calm down because you never, you know, people -- the teachers and -- I mean the administration -- you have to just watch yourself. There are certain things you just can't say and probably in a joking way, but it was a lot of stuff going on at the time. The schools had been with firearms and up in Columbine and different situations, so probably it was in a -- I don't know what to say -- but he just spoke of we need to get all the kids about and leave the administration in and blow up the school. Q. Do you remember saying that it was probably in a joking manner back when your deposition was taken? A. Well, basically when Neil spoke about things, he laughed about it, so at the time, like I said, there was so much going on between the news and that, I would never know anymore. Q. All right. So he might have though it was funny, but you didn't think it was funny; is that fair? A. No, sir. The testimony of Ms. Blake, mirroring the testimony of Secretary Bragdon, demonstrated bad taste on behalf of Mr. Merica. When subject to cross-examination about the statement or other aspects of her prior testimony, Ms. Blake became vague and uncertain about her prior versions and was inconsistent on matters that seriously undermined her credibility. Consideration of the situation and circumstances when Mr. Merica made the alleged statement supports a reasonable inference that Mr. Merica's statement was a crude and boorish attempt at making a joke, not in good taste, but nonetheless a joke. The Commissioner did not prove by the above testimony that Mr. Merica was hostile and subversive or intended his comment as derogatory and disrespectful toward his principal as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Classroom Management Allegations Pat Drennan, assistant principal at Foster, by her admission was primarily responsible for the school's educational curriculum. In her "educational curriculum" capacity, Ms. Drennan assisted teachers, students, and parents in curriculum matters and assisted teachers in discipline in the classroom, student testing, and student grades. She was unable to recall the year and date, but she recalled she had been in her position as assistant principal for four years, approximately 1998 through January 2004. When asked about the Board's policy regarding an educator's physical restraint of students, Ms. Drennan responded that her "understanding" of the Board's policy was: [B]asically teachers are not to restrain students unless they have been trained-- unless they have ACT training they can not bring a child down on the ground or anything. She did not know whether Mr. Merica was ACT trained or not at all times pertinent and at the time of her testimony. No writing in the record speaks to this issue, and no predicate was laid to show that the witness was in a position to know the Board's policy. This witness stated her "understanding" of the applicable rule. A finding of fact that a violation of a penal statute or rule occurred cannot be based upon loose interpretations and problematic evidence, but on evidence as substantial as the penalty for violation of such statue or rule. The testimonial evidence given by this witness failed to establish the "rule." Thus, her opinion regarding violation of a rule she does not know, lacks a foundation upon which a reasonable degree of reliability will support. Ms. Drennan recalled one occasion on which (no evidence of the month and year) on which she instructed Mr. Merica "not to restrain a student she 'thought' he had restrained." She recalled making one general suggestion (not explained) to Mr. Merica regarding classroom behavior management, adding, but "he did not have to do it." Ms. Drennan did not know whether during his last year at Foster (1999-2000) Mr. Merica taught the entire year. When asked if she knew why Mr. Merica left Foster she answered: [I]n my mind, the situation was that he no longer was able to control himself and the class--the management of the class. No evidence of record speaks to the issue of a standard of classroom management from which to evaluate Mr. Merica's conduct. To demonstrate this issue the Commissioner's reliance on witnesses who could but state their "understanding" from various and dubious vantage points, failed to prove what was required of Mr. Merica and the specific conduct that fell below the required standards. The intended inference to be drawn from the above testimony of Foster's assistant principal, that Mr. Merica was "unable to control himself" and "unable to manage his class" and thus incompetent, is rejected for a lack of personal knowledge on behalf of the witness and evidence of an objective standard from which to evaluate "control" and class "management" by a teacher. The Commissioner failed to establish, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that Mr. Merica was unable to control himself and unable to manage his class and, thus, demonstrated incompetence, during the (unspecified) period inferred by Ms. Drennan's testimony, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified, unconvincingly, about hearsay from another teacher, Ms. Parson, who told her, "for information only." According to Ms. Drennan: Ms. Paula Parson, a teacher who did not want anything done about it but for information only, told her she was apprehensive about Mr. Merica bringing her lunch and giving her unwanted attention. Paula Parson was not called to testify. The intended inference of unwanted attention is not accepted by the undersigned. The Commissioner failed to prove by the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of Ms. Drennan that Mr. Merica sexually harassed several different co-workers, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility When asked if she was familiar with the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility, Ms. Drennan again, unconvincingly, testified: I think yes, basically, the rule that deals with personal conduct that seriously reduces an educator's effectiveness in the school district,--when someone coming into the district-I would want to look at previous-- what had happened previously with the person and I would think they would be ineffective; I would find them ineffective in the fact if they were not open to interaction with faculty and staff in an appropriate, professional way; They are ineffective if they don't know how to deal with children in the proper way. If they couldn't tell me that they could do a management plan--have one before they walked in. I would find them ineffective if they were not--didn't have the right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many. Besides a degree, it would be how you get along with people, how open you are to learning new things, and that type of thing. There were no incidents of Mr. Merica being insubordinate or confrontational with Principal Payne witnessed by Ms. Drennan. This witness presented no evidence that she had personal knowledge of Mr. Merica's classroom management skills or the lack thereof. Her "opinions" about what conduct would be inappropriate and what conduct that would seriously reduce an educator's effectiveness (and competence) in the school district are her "opinions" and nothing more. The "right tools for teaching, basically, and those tools are many," standard coming from an assistant principal does not establish an objective and acceptable standard by which to evaluate a teacher's competence as a professional teacher. Viewed most favorably, the "opinions" of Ms. Drennan are not appropriate, objective standards by which to determine whether the professional conduct of a fellow teacher fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed to prove, by the testimony of Ms. Drennan, that during the period starting approximately in 1998 and continuing through December 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in conduct that fell below the Code of Conduct and/or violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Confrontations with Principal Griffin Ms. Drennan testified that at some point in time (of which she was not sure and unable to identify) her office was located next door to Principal Griffin's office, and she would "intentionally" leave her door open. According to Ms. Drennan, by leaving her door ajar she "could overhear and 'tell from the tone of the voice'--when someone was loud and confrontational like that [sic] you just never know and I just worried that there could be something else happening." Asked what she meant by "loud and confrontational," Ms. Drennan responded: Well, anger. Obviously, the man was angry when he was in there sometimes. I'm not saying every time, but the times that we're talking about like that, he was angry and anger sometimes can lead to other things, so . . . Ms. Drennan purportedly could overhear Mr. Merica speaking with her door open, but she gave no testimony of what, if anything, she overheard Mr. Merica say. Ms. Drennan's testimony, regarding loud talking by Mr. Merica toward Principal Griffin, inferring his state of mind as being emotionally out of control while conferencing with his principal, is speculative conjecture. There is no record evidence that this witness observed nor personally confirmed with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica was, in fact, angry with Principal Griffin on each of those "sometimes" occasions she heard "someone was loud." This witness did not observe nor subsequently confirm with Principal Griffin that Mr. Merica pointed his finger her face, during those unspecified occasions when she sometimes left her office door ajar and sometimes heard someone was loud, as alleged in the Amended Administrative complaint. Secretary Bragdon recalled Mr. Merica yelling “everyday all the time,” and Ms. Drennan contradicts that testimony recalling he was loud and angry, but, qualifying that statement, she added she was “not saying every time [he was in the office].” The testimony of both witnesses, considered separately and together, failed to produced a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Refusal of Failure to Comply with Requests and Instructions When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of any failure or the refusal by Mr. Merica to comply with an identified request or instruction given by either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. When asked, Ms. Drennan could not provide testimony based on personal knowledge or personal observation of Mr. Merica having made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks about Principals Payne or Griffin in her presence. Ms. Drennan's opinion that Mr. Merica deviated from her "understanding" of the principles contained in the Code of Conduct and Rules of Professional Responsibility standards were speculative and insufficient to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from or violated the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner failed through this witness to establish any violation or any deviation from standards found in the Code of Conduct and the Rules of Professional Responsibility by Mr. Merica. Ms. Drennan failed to establish an objective, ascertainable standard of professional level of effective teacher behavior and teacher classroom management for SLD and IP students. Her testimony and the intended inferences regarding Mr. Merica's alleged ineffective and unprofessional student behavior, teaching, classroom control, and student management is incompetent to establish as fact that Mr. Merica deviated from clearly, established professional standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Drennan testified as did other co-workers who were present that Mr. Merica's had occasional disruptive verbal conduct in faculty and staff meetings and that during collegiate discussions he often demonstrated an argumentative attitude. The Commissioner proved, through the testimony of Ms. Drennan and other witnesses who were present and testified, that at one or more (unspecified) faculty and/or staff meetings that Mr. Merica occasionally engaged in disruptive verbal conduct accompanied by an argumentative attitude. Derogatory and/or Disrespectful Remarks About Principal Shelley Opila worked as a PI and ESE teacher at Foster from August 1996 to July 2001. When asked to give an example of "bashing the principal," Ms. Opila testified that during (unspecified) faculty meetings, Mr. Merica would often state: "Oh, that will never work," in response to unspecified matters under discussion. There is no record evidence of the situation or circumstances of the particular subject matter under discussions when this witness overheard the statement. Viewed most favorably, the isolated statement, "Oh, that will never work," is a personal opinion and, as such, does not evidence a manifest intent by Mr. Merica to make derogatory statements about the Foster administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Opila testified that she overheard Mr. Merica several times voice his personal opinions "[t]hat you have to be blonde or a female," and "It's who you know to be a principal." Without evidence of the situational circumstances when the statement was made, Ms. Opila assumed that Mr. Merica was referring to one or both, Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin. There was no corroboration from either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin that Ms. Opila conveyed her concerns to either of them regarding Mr. Merica's alleged derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks. Viewed most favorably, the general statement "You have to be blond or a female," could have been a true statement if the record evidence established the color of Principal Payne and Principal Griffin's hair during their respective tenure as principal. The record evidence, however, does not. As reflected in the record, the testimony of this witness does not evidence a specific intent of Mr. Merica to make derogatory comments about Principal Griffin or Principal Payne. The record evidence reflects that approximately 120 educational personnel worked at Foster during the time in question and among that number only five or six were males. The reference to "blond and female to be principal" applied equally to approximately 100 females at Foster who, if they were not at the time the opinion statement was made, were capable of being blond and also capable of being a principal. Neither Principal Payne nor Principal Griffin testified regarding their respective hair colors during times pertinent to when the alleged statements were made by Mr. Merica, and the undersigned did not notice and can not recall with any certainty, the hair color of each of the twenty-plus female witnesses who testified in the proceeding. With the presence of more than 100 other females at Foster, and no evidence of the hair color of the principals at any time, an inexplicable ambiguity of "intent" is here presented. The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of Ms. Opila, that Mr. Merica intended to, and did specifically, make the derogatory comments about Principal Payne and/or Principal Griffin by the "blond [hair color] to be principal" statement as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Mr. Merica's Students Performance Ellen Lipari was a teacher of third and fourth grade PI students with various physical ailments and/or traumatic brain impairments from the 1992-1993 school year to approximately the 1997-1998 school year. She taught forth grade PI students during the same five-year period Mr. Merica taught first grade PI students. According to Ms. Lipari: [U]nder the pull-out school board policy in effect during that time, Mr. Merica would pull out and send his kindergarten and first grade level PI students to her third and fourth grade level classes. At some unspecified period during the five-year time period, she and Mr. Merica switched grade levels, Ms. Lipari moved down and taught the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and Mr. Merica moved up and taught the third and fourth grade level PI students. After the switch, she would send her kindergarten and first grade level PI students to his third and fourth grade level classes. According to Ms. Lipari, during the 1997-1998 school year she had many opportunities to observe students Mr. Merica taught when they were thereafter assigned to her class. During that year, she personally observed Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management methods, and his in- class teaching conduct and style. Ms. Lipari described her impressions, gained from close, extended, daily and weekly contact, of his classroom control and management skills and his teaching skills of PI students with various physical ailments and traumatic brain impairments as: Well, you know, he was a very technically-he was technically doing his job, but there was a lot of humanized things that you do with younger children to try to get them to learn to read and those kinds of things that primarily he did not do. He was mostly teaching out of the textbook and trying to teach very specific things and not doing the kinds of things and that's why we decided it would be better if I moved down so that I could do more mothering and maternal type activities and maybe the older children would respond better to having a man teacher. Alleged Complaint from an Unidentified Mother Ms. Lipari moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, and to provide what she described as "mothering and maternal type activities," in keeping with the stated policy and goal of Principle Griffin as chief of the Foster administration. As a male teacher, Mr. Merica could not provide "mothering and maternal type activities to first grade level PI students," and it was not established that "mothering and maternal type activities" were requirements of all teachers, male and female, by this policy. During an unspecified period after she moved down to teach the kindergarten and first grade level PI students, unidentified parents of her former kindergarten and first grade student(s) called her complaining to her about the differences in the curriculum used to teach their children who were then in third or fourth grade levels under Mr. Merica. According to Ms. Lipari, some unidentified parents of PI students complained to her that "their former kindergarten and first grade children had been allowed to do certain things, like watch TV programs to which they had become accustomed." Based upon complaints from parent(s) she could not identify, Ms. Lipari reached conclusions and, based upon those conclusions, offered her opinion: I personally did not see any educational benefit to students watching TV because our kids [PI] are at least developmentally delayed, if not mentally handicapped, as well as being physically impaired because those children are primarily mentally impaired. Most of our children's IQs go maybe up to 70-75, so the kind of math that you would do in The Price is Right [TV program] would not be valid for those age level of children. During her years of working with Mr. Merica and observing Mr. Merica's teaching methodologies, his classroom management, and his in class teaching conduct, she never once personally observed Mr. Merica's students watching TV programs. Ms. Lipari's recollection of one phone call and her failure to identify the parent(s), who were so concerned about their children that they personally called Ms. Lipari, fairly detracted from the weight and believability of her testimony rendering it unreliable to establish facts alleged therein. Her testimony was further diminished by the lack of corroborating testimony from other witnesses. Ms. Lipari's testimony failed to produce a firm belief, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established. Ms. Lipari's opinion regarding educational benefits derived from watching a TV program, based upon the hearsay of unnamed parent(s), failed to prove, such activity actually occurred, or if it did occur, failed to prove that Mr. Merica’s use of such methods and skills were ineffective teaching methods and deviated from the Code of Ethics or Standards of Competent Professional Performance standards as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. IPE Preparation and Assistance Ms. Lipari testified that she assisted Mr. Merica, on unspecified occasions, by "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." According to Ms. Lipari: [F]or every student with an IEP, the teacher, parent and therapist [another teacher] agree on goals and objectives that in their collective determination can be achieved by the child during the forthcoming school year. The IEP is a joint collaborative endeavor requiring discussions, disagreements, compromises and finally an acceptable document; subject to subsequent modifications. Ms. Lipari gave her personal belief that: [T]he teacher(s) has to find different ways of handling their PI students' problems because each child is different, according to their disability, according to their ability to write or not be able to write. Some PI children cannot write at all. Some PI children cannot speak at all. Therefore, the teacher has to find some ways to show that the child can read. Because he can't read out loud to the teacher, the teacher would find different methods that can used to show the student is making progress. IEPs are personalized crafted documents designed to address the perceived needs and method of instructions to address the need(s) of each handicapped student. The evidence of record does not speak to the issue of accepted standard(s) for writing an IEP nor is there evidence that Mr. Merica did not comply with accepted standards for writing an IEP. The Commissioner's reliance on Ms. Lipari's "belief" that Mr. Merica needed her assistance in writing one IEP, without more, failed to establish that Mr. Merica was incompetent in his professional teaching skills and/or in IEP writing and/or implementation skills. Viewed most favorably, Mr. Merica had five to six years of writing IEPs with other teachers and counselors before Ms. Lipari's offered assistance which she characterized as "explaining the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP." The intended inference of this testimony requires first a belief that other teachers and counselors who had worked with Mr. Merica on IEPs during the preceding five years (1987-1992) either did not know "the particulars of an IEP and the mechanics of writing an IEP" or were unable or unwilling to recognize a need for "the mechanics of writing an IEP" and to offer and suggest methods of improvement to Mr. Merica, to include Principal Payne who worked with Mr. Merica for almost 10 years. The testimony of this witness was not corroborated. The testimony of Ms. Lipari failed to include essential details that are central to the facts sought to be established and, thus, failed to produce any belief of conviction as to the truth of allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Lipari also failed to demonstrate a single refusal by Mr. Merica to accept and implement one positive necessary suggestion that was, in fact, made by Ms. Lipari to Mr. Merica relating to teaching students with IEPs. This testimony failed to establish the existence of, the beginning of, or the continuation of, a demonstration of professional teaching incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Physical Restraint and Control of Unruly Male Students Ms. Lipari recalled one occasion an unidentified male student in her class was unruly in the hall. During the time her male student was being unruly, Mr. Merica came along with his class. He asked her if he could be of help with her unruly student and according to her, without waiting for her to reply, physically restrained her unruly male student. No evidence of record establishes an injury to any unruly male student that resulted from the physical restraint by Mr. Merica. This testimony demonstrated that on one occasion Mr. Merica restrained one unruly male student in the hallway who was in Ms. Lipari's class. This evidence also demonstrated that PI and SLD students were routinely unruly in the hallways and elsewhere in the school, when Ms. Lipari was the teacher in control and in charge as well as when Mr. Merica was the teacher in control and in charge of a class. This evidence also demonstrated the propensity of young male students to react to female teachers and to male teachers in a different manner. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding unruly conduct of students, in the hallways when Mr. Merica was the teacher in charge, does not evidence his lack of ability to control and manage his unruly students, as alleged in the Amend Administrative Complaint. This testimony does establish as fact that Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student during a period when his ATC certification was expired. This technical violation of ATC certification by Mr. Merica is accompanied by the fact that the unruly student was unhurt; other PI students were not harmed; and Ms. Lipari, a female, who provided "mothering and maternal type activities," was rendered assistance by a male co-worker, in keeping with the school's policy, according to Ms. Lipari, of having a male teacher in charge of the older and larger male PI students. Ms. Lipari further testified that on one unspecified occasion when she was present in the school hall, Mr. Merica's class was "very loud and unruly." This is the same witness whose class had an unruly male student in the hall when Mr. Merica restrained him. According to Ms. Lipari, during Mr. Merica's loud and unruly class in the hall incident, her class was under her supervision and her volunteer, an unnamed "grandmother," who was assisting her with her class on that unspecified date. According to Ms. Lipari, she and the grandmother observed Mr. Merica: [M]oving from the front of his class line to the back of his class line, swinging his arms back and forth for his unruly students to get in line and stay in line; but, he was not swinging his arms at his students or in their faces. "Grandmother(s)" are community volunteers who come in to assist teachers with PI and SLD students. According to the witness, the objective of grandmother assistants is to provide a soothing and calming presence in the classrooms. Assuming the intended inference to be drawn from this vague, non-explicit, testimony was to demonstrate Mr. Merica's inability to control his class and his unprofessional conduct in the presence of an unidentified member of the community, it failed. The testimony in finding 70 above was not corroborated by other witnesses and was sufficiently vague so as to cause doubt and raise substantial issues of credibility. Viewed most favorably, the above testimony failed to produce a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of this witness, that Mr. Merica's conduct was inappropriate or unprofessional in any manner toward his students in the hall at some unspecified period or in the presence of a member of the public/community as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Negative Feelings About School Administration Ms. Lipari acknowledged that Mr. Merica was a very outspoken person on all issues he addressed. From that observation she went on to testify about an incident in the teacher's lounge when she overheard him make the statement: "[n]o woman was going to tell him what to do." From overhearing that part of a single statement at some unidentified time and without providing the circumstances and context in which the alleged statement was made, Ms. Lipari assumed she knew how Mr. Merica felt about Principal Payne, Principal Griffin and, in general "all females." Based on her assumptions, Ms. Lipari concluded Mr. Merica's statement was specifically intended to be derogatory about a particular unnamed principal. She further assumed the statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do" included her. Based upon those assumptions, she inferred Mr. Merica was speaking first, in a negative fashion; second, he was speaking about all women in general; and third, he was speaking about Principal Griffin in particular. Ms. Lipari's testimony regarding Mr. Merica's general opinion statement "no woman was going to tell him what to do," without establishing the context, situation, and/or circumstances at the time the statement was made failed to establish anything other than the statement was made. To this non-specific and ambiguous testimony, any number of meanings can reasonably be attributed, including his private and personal relationships with women in his past. Testimony of this isolated statement is not competent to establish a manifested intent on behalf of Mr. Merica to be disrespectful toward Principal Griffin or Principal Payne or women in general. The testimony in finding 72 was not placed in a situational circumstance that would have enabled the undersigned to render an objective evaluation. The alleged out-of-context statement is not competent to establish as fact allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally made derogatory and disrespectful statements about Principal Griffin and other female co-workers as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. IEP Preparation and Principal Griffin/Mr. Merica Relationship Linda Thomas was an ESE specialist at Foster from 1997 through 2002. Her duties included giving suggestions for curriculum or classroom management, assisting teachers with paperwork, and assisting resource teachers as needed. The usual method of contact would originate from a principal who would call Ms. Thomas and request her to lend assistance to a specific teacher. Answering the open-ended question, "what caused her concern about the Principal Griffin-Teacher Merica relationship," Ms. Thomas, without providing the year or month, answered: In my opinion, I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin- -that he demonstrated that in the school setting. A number of times I overheard him say things such as that he would be around longer than she would. He was frequently making comments in faculty meetings just in general about the leadership and the administration in the school and his dissatisfaction with it. Ms. Thomas' testimony confirmed testimony of others that Mr. Merica often spoke out in faculty and staff meetings. Her opinion regarding what she "believed" to be Mr. Merica's opinion about the administrative leadership, even if true, was based on the alleged "frequency of unspecified comments," and her opinion that "I don't believe that Mr. Merica had much respect for Ms. Griffin--that he demonstrated that in the school setting," failed to establish as fact any allegation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Answering the question regarding Mr. Merica's preparation for IEP meetings, and without identifying the number of IEP meetings she attended with Mr. Merica during the 1994 through 1999 period in question, Ms. Thomas stated: I believed preparation was very minimal. There was not -- he was not always ready. Most of his IEPs were all the same. Yet, it's -- an IEP is an individual education plan which is written specifically for each child, so every child in your class should not have the same thing written for them. Regarding his preparation of IEPs during the five-year period from 1994 to 1999, and without evidence of the number of IEP prepared by Mr. Merica and/or the number of occasions she personally inspected one or more of those IEPs, Ms. Thomas concluded that "[f]requently he wasn't prepared." This witness’ "belief" was not a "belief" based upon personal knowledge or facts. Though she believed "most of his IEPs--frequently not prepared," there is no evidence of record that she had personal knowledge or had occasion to review the content of an IEP prepared by Mr. Merica upon which to base her "belief," and, without more, her belief is speculative. Ms. Thomas was not qualified as an expert on IEPs and her personal "beliefs" and opinions regarding unidentified IEPs that she may or may not have reviewed, is lacking in preciseness to produce a firm belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. As such, Ms. Thomas' testimony is not competent to corroborate and does not corroborate or support Ms. Lipari's testimony purporting to support the allegation that Mr. Merica's preparation of IEPs "in the school year of 1994- 1995 evidenced his ineffective teaching performance and demonstrated the beginning of his alleged incompetence that allegedly continued undiminished until not later than the end of the 1999 calendar year," as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed through the testimony of Ms. Thomas to establish as fact or to prove that Mr. Merica initially or began to demonstrate an inability, refusal, improper, or any other negative aspect of his professional teaching responsibilities at any time during the 1994-1995 school year. Ms. Thomas testified of overhearing statements made by Mr. Merica of which she shortly thereafter made the following written notation dated August 12, 1999: This morning at bus arrival time Mr. Merica left his students unsupervised to go into the clinic to talk with the nurse. His conversation consisted of suggestions that the clinic should have cell phones that could be used at home. He also commented that he should talk to the television reporters who were outside to let them know how the county runs things. He came in and out of the clinic at least 3 times in a 10 minute time span and made these comments in the presence of staff and at least one student. Ms. Thomas' testimony and her subsequent written notation regarding a conversation consisting of "suggestions" that the clinic should have cell phones and that Mr. Merica "should talk to the television reporters who were outside," if true, were suggestions and nothing more. The witness did not know why or for what reason Mr. Merica entered the clinic. The identification of the staff member (other than herself) or identification of the unnamed student alleged to have been present and presumably overheard Mr. Merica's suggestions are not in the record. The witness' testimony demonstrated a distinct lack of a specific memory of the facts at issue to which she testified. The testimony in findings 77 through 80 failed to establish a firm belief without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Visits and Observations Ms. Thomas testified that over an unidentified three- year period she visited and observed Mr. Merica teaching his PI class approximately ten times with each visit lasting ten to 30 minutes. Ms. Thomas' visits and observations were neither made at the request of the principal nor were they made after notice was given to Mr. Merica. She did, however, make note of a single incident outside the school cafeteria, apparently for future reference and not to help a fellow teacher; but of the ten visits she made to observe and presumably help a fellow teacher, she made no written notations evidencing the dates of her visits and observations, at or near the time of each visit. Her alleged visits to Mr. Merica's class, without specifying the reasons for her visits, were more or less one co-worker visiting another co-worker; if, in fact, those ten, undocumented visits actually occurred. Documents Prepared Critical of Mr. Merica's Performance Ms. Thomas did, however, within a 45-day period, prepare seven documents, each critical of either Mr. Merica's conduct or professional teaching methods, and purportedly gave a copy of each document to Principal Griffin. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas were all dated over a three-month period (August 11, 1999 to October 27, 1999), when from evidence of record, Foster administration was preparing to recommend to the Board termination of Mr. Merica's contract employment with the county. Ms. Thomas dated her first document August 11, 1999. She dated her six additional documents Augusts 12, October 19, 20, 21, 25, and 27, 1999. The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas did not include any of the alleged ten visits she made over the three-year (from 1997 through August 11, 1999) observation period of Mr. Merica to which she testified from long past memory in Finding of Fact 81 hereinabove. No other witness, including Mr. Merica, corroborated Ms. Thomas' alleged ten visits to Mr. Merica's class. I find the lack of documentation and the witness' lack of recall ability regarding specifics that occurred more than four years past an insurmountable barrier in accepting the witness' testimony as creditable on those significant points sought to be established. When asked on cross-examination whether Principal Griffin requested her to prepare the two August 1999 documents and the five October 1999 documents, Ms. Thomas suffered a sudden lapse of memory. When asked about each document individually, Ms. Thomas gave answers of either "I don't remember," "I couldn't say for sure" or "I couldn't guarantee." The seven documents prepared by Ms. Thomas in August and October 1999 contained alleged statements made by Mr. Merica, some personal observations, a prepared historical statement beginning with her first meeting with Mr. Merica in 1996 throughout 1997 and 1999, and hearsay statements from several students that were not recorded at or near the time they were made. The witness' failed memory, coupled with her inability to recall if she was asked by her principal to prepare those seven documents within such a short time span, rendered suspect and unreliable both the author and the content of her seven documents. The witness was defensive, evasive, and reluctant on significant points, evidenced by her lack of memory and confusion regarding who made the request and for what purpose she wrote seven different documents in a short time period. Her answers were not forthright and this aspect of her testimony raised insurmountable issues regarding her credibility. The testimony of Ms. Thomas lacked sufficient reliability, due to her uncertainty, to produce a firm belief in the mind of the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica Compared to Classroom Management by Other Teachers When asked about problems regarding classroom management Mr. Merica had with his PI classes as "compared with class room management problems of other teachers," Ms. Thomas answered "[t]here are children in most classes who present behavior problems." Her memory was better on this issue and she recalled observing a few instances with two or three students creating problems in Mr. Merica's class. However, she did not identify the "other teachers" to whom she compared Mr. Merica nor did the witness establish "the other teachers" class room management standards. I find the witness' testimony was intentionally slanted to exaggerate the nature of Mr. Merica's classroom management without providing specific incidents from which an objective evaluation could have been made. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Thomas, to prove allegations that Mr. Merica demonstrated incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, by evidence that he had "more" behavior problems in his ESE and PI classes than other unidentified ESE and PI teachers similarly situated. Classroom Management by Mr. Merica as Compared to Classroom Management by New Teachers with Less Teaching Experience Ms. Thomas testified, unconvincingly, that after Mr. Merica left Foster in 2000, new unidentified teachers came in and taught self-contained SLD classes with acceptable classroom management style. With improved memory on this issue, Ms. Thomas recalled that she observed the new teachers' classroom management style but could not remember if she documented classroom management problems observed with the new teachers, as she had with Mr. Merica. Assuming the intended purpose of this particular testimony was to demonstrate an appreciable difference between Mr. Merica's classroom management skills and teaching methods, after years of experience, to the classroom management skills and teaching methods of new teachers with much less experience, it failed. The testimony of Ms. Thomas regarding the issue of her comparison of class management and teaching skills of Mr. Merica to those of new unidentified teachers, including documents she prepared, those referred to, and the alleged acts therein, whether used for comparison or not, occurred beyond the 1994 through 1999 time period alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint or some comparable pleading. On that basis, this testimony of Ms. Thomas must be, and is, rejected in toto. It is a basic tenet of common law pleading that "the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." See Rose v. State, 507 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The documents Ms. Thomas prepared and the testimony she presented herein above in findings 78 through 85 failed to establish as fact that on those occasions Ms. Thomas observed Mr. Merica, he failed to perform to professional expectations as a competent teacher as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Statements Made to Principal Griffin's Daughter Tamiko Council believed, but was not certain, that she was a DEEDS attendant at Foster the 1997 to the 1999 or the 2000 school year. She testified that during a (unspecified) summer school session, Principal Griffin's daughter had been introduced to her earlier in the day but she was unable to give the date of the incident. As she recalled, she and Principal Griffin's daughter were coming from the bus ramp in route to the cafeteria when Mr. Merica noticed Principal Griffin's daughter and, in her presence, said to the child: You need to tell your mom to quit worrying about teachers around the school. She needs to focus more on what the children are doing. Later that day Principal Griffin called Ms. Council into her office and made inquiry regarding the incident, as told her by her daughter, and Ms. Council confirmed the incident had occurred. Mr. Merica acknowledged making a statement to Principal Griffin's daughter. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica made a statement to the daughter of Principal Griffin. The appropriateness of a teacher stating his opinion to a young person who was a student attending a Hillsborough County school was inappropriate. However, the statement alone, under the above circumstances, does not demonstrate a "failure to protect student[s] attending for educational purposes from harmful conditions." There is no evidence of record offered to demonstrate that Principal Griffin's daughter, after the comments by Mr. Merica, "experienced harmful conditions to her educational purposes," during the summer she was at the school of which her mother was principal. Pamela Wilkins was a teacher of educable mentally handicapped students at Foster for a five-year period from 1993 to 1998. During the three-year period of approximately 1995 through 1998, Ms. Wilkins was an ESE specialist. Harassment and Unreasonable Interference with Co-workers Ms. Wilkins testified regarding an incident that allegedly occurred when she asked Mr. Merica into her office for an unspecified discussion. Ms. Wilkins did not remember the school year or the month the incident of which she testified occurred nor did she remember the situational circumstances, the context or the issue over which she and Mr. Merica had their alleged discussion and subsequent disagreement. With no memory of any specifics as to why she would ask him into her room, Ms. Wilkins only recalled Mr. Merica’s discussion with her that she characterized as "his getting upset and her saying nothing." Ms. Wilkins did not know why she invited him into her office, but emphasized her "only reason" for inviting "him into her office would have been to discuss an ESE issue." There is no record evidence regarding the ESE issue of such importance that this witness called Mr. Merica into her office for a discussion of an issue she does not recall, when her "only" time calling him into her office was so memorable. Having established her ability to ”call Mr. Merica into her office" for reasons unknown to her, this witness then testified about some purported disagreement between she and Mr. Merica. Even assuming the alleged disagreement occurred and was, in fact, over an ESE issue between she and Mr. Merica during their single discussion the witness testified: I really don't recall the entire situation. The main thing 'is just his response.' We were talking about--obviously it was ESE issues and he ended up getting upset, and I was on one side of the desk and he was on the other side. He ended up leaning over the desk and was in my face. His veins in his neck were bulging and kind of trembling and just was yelling at me and I was completely stunned and shocked the way he had responded and so I really did not say anything else at that time. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins evidenced her characterization of one party's reaction to an alleged disagreement over an alleged and unidentified ESE issue. Absence evidence of the context, circumstances, and the ESE issue that precipitated the purported disagreement between co- workers, the record contains no basis upon which to determine with reasonable certainty the appropriateness of one party's alleged reaction to the other party's input during a collegiate disagreement. The referenced reaction, even if accepted as factually true, absent evidence of the issue, context and circumstances, failed to clearly and convincingly establish an unprofessional, hostile behavior on behalf of Mr. Merica toward a co-worker, Mr. Wilkins, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The witness' apparent stunned and shocked reaction to a co-workers' disagreement with her over an unidentified ESE issue was not so unprofessional and shocking, at the time of occurrence, to compel Ms. Wilkins to report such shocking disagreement to the school administration. It was not of such importance, at that time, to prompt Ms. Wilkins to document her shocking outrage for future reference and possible investigation by proper school authorities. Ms. Thomas' lack of recall of the circumstances to an incident to which she was a major participant, and the record evidence of scant circumstances surrounding the alleged one-party reaction to a two-party discussion and alleged violent disagreement, created an insurmountable credibility gap in her testimony. Based on the foregone, it is found that the testimony of this witness lacks credibility. This testimony is rejected because it is wholly unreliable regarding the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The testimony of Ms. Wilkins in findings 90, 91, 92 and 93, hereinabove, absent record evidence of the issue which caused the alleged disagreement between colleagues, is sufficiently vague and imprecise that it failed to establish a firm belief, without hesitation, of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The alleged conduct by one party over an unidentified issue during a mutual disagreement between colleagues does not establish unprofessional conduct or a violation of established standard of professional protocol. The Commissioner failed, through the testimony of Ms. Wilkins, to prove that Mr. Merica, while in Ms. Wilkins' office engaged in conduct that was unprofessional, belligerent, hostile, confrontational, and subversive in the workplace toward his co- worker as alleged in the Amended Administration Complaint. Sexual Harassing Statements Made in Presence of Child Evelyn Tait, at all times material, was the administrative data processor at Foster. Before her promotion to administrative data processor, she was a teacher's aide for a few years. Ms. Tait is the sister of Secretary Bragdon. Ms. Tait first qualified her testimony stating that she "believed but was not certain," that the Investigation Manager for the Board (Michael Saia) came to her and asked her if she would write a statement about Mr. Merica. In her effort to comply with the request of the Board's investigator, and on October 2, 2001, Ms. Tait wrote the following document purporting to detail a "forgotten and previously unreported incident" that allegedly occurred, some three years earlier, in 1999. Ms. Tait's efforts to comply with the request of the Board Investigator resulted in Ms. Tait writing the following October 2, 2001, addendum to her 1999 written statement: On August 27, 1999, I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Neil Merica. The statement that I wrote was true and accurate [sic] as I recall. However, I would like to add a time that I was out in the pickup area picking up my son from school. I was in my care [sic] and Mr. MERICA came over to my window and made a commet [sic] regarding to what was under my shirt. I was made to feel very uncomfortable, and was inappropriately addressed [sic] from a teacher to a pa [sic] and also to a parent of a child in this school. Back in August 27, 1999, Ms. Tait wrote: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter to you regarding the actions of Mr. Neil Merica that I have observed. I am a paraprofessional at Foster Elementary School and have only been employed as a permanent employee since the beginning of this school year.[1999] On several occasions, I have seen Mr. Merica screaming at a student with his face being very close to theirs. The child on each occasion looked very scared. Since I am such a new employee at the school, I am not familiar with the discipline procedures of the instructors, but being a parent of an eight year old, I know that the behavior that I have seen him display with the students is very uncalled for. As a parent, I would be very upset if I thought for once that a teacher was yelling at my child in such a manner. I have also witnessed Mr. Merica when he was upset for one reason or another with the administration. He sometimes appears to be out of control, saying things that are unnecessary. I am writing this letter for documentation of what I have observed and for the welfare of the children involved. I am requesting that my name not be revealed to Mr. Merica because being "a smoker", I am in contact with him daily. I am afraid of retaliation from him if he were to find out. Sincerely, Signed by Evelyn B. Tait /s/ The two documents signed by Ms. Tait, and her explanations when questioned, evidenced not truth, but rather confusion caused by this witness' attempt to comply with the request by Mr. Saia, in preparation for her testimony at this hearing. The truth and accuracy of the documents as well as Ms. Tait's understanding, explanation, and lack of credibility regarding these two documents are best demonstrated by her cross-examination: Q. Would you look back at number exhibit 23 again? You wrote that statement on October 2, 2001; is that correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And the first sentence says: "On August 27, 1999 I wrote a statement regarding Mr. Merica." (as read) Were you referring the Exhibit 22? A. I think I was --- Q. All right. You were referring to the other statement when you write that? A. I think I was. Q. I want you to take your time and made sure. That one is dated August 27th, 1999; correct? A. Yes. This happened on two separate occasions. Q. That's what we're going to get to in a minute if you'll let me walk you through this. A. Yeah, it did. Q. You go on to state that you gave a statement back in August '99 and everything you said in that was true, but you want to add something. And what you want to add is this incident that happened at the pickup circle: correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long ago had that incident happened at the pickup circle? A. What do you mean, how long ago? Q. How long prior to the time when you wrote this statement? A. I would say probably close to the date that it was signed. Q. Okay. So the incident at the circle would have been close to October 2001? A. I don't remember the dates sir. I don't remember the dates that I wrote the statements. I don't remember the dated. Q. Al right. The incident at the circle -- did you complain about it when it happened? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who did you complain to? A. I went and obviously told the principal's secretary again. I don’t' know who I would complain to. I'm just not going to -- you know, I wasn't out to get Mr. Merica in trouble. Q. I'm not suggesting that -- A. I was just --- Q. I'm not suggesting that you were. [Witnesses instructed by the undersign to answer the question asked by counsel without editorializing] Q. All right. Let's walk back through it. An incident happened at the pickup circle; correct? A. Um-hum. Q. And at some point after that incident, you reported the incident to someone; is that correct? A. It was immediately. Q. Immediately? That day? A. Yes. Q. All right. You got out of your car when you picked up your child? A. No. It wasn't immediately that day. It was -- like I said, the principal's secretary is my sister, so I probably reported it that afternoon. Q. After you picked up your child? A. Um--hum. Q. Is that a "yes"? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. You took your child home? A. Yes. Q. And then went back to the school to report it? A. No. I probably called her on the telephone. Q. All right. You've said "probably a number of times. Do you -- A. I called her on the -- I don't remember. I'm sorry. I don't remember. You know, I don't remember when it was placed, to be honest with you. I don't remember exactly when it was reported, how it was reported. I don't remember. Q. All right. Did anyone ask you to write a statement about the incident that occurred at the pickup area? A. I don't remember that, either. I guess someone must have asked me to write a statement or I wouldn't have written one. Q. And when you say you wrote one, you're talking about Exhibit 23; correct? A. I wrote this statement as well. Q. Is there another statement besides Exhibit 23 that addresses the incident that allegedly occurred at the pickup circle at the school? A. No. It's this one. Q. So to your knowledge that is the only statement that you made; correct? You made that statement a couple of years after the incident occurred; correct? A. That would be 10-02 -- I mean, 01. Q. All right. A. August 27th is the first statement. Q. Of '99; correct? A. Right. Q. So here we are a couple of years later in 2001 and you're making a statement for the first time about the traffic circle incident; correct? A. Right. Q. That's the only statement that you're written about that? A. Yes. I am very sorry. This is very confusing to me. I wrote statement when they were reported -- you know, when I reported them. I don't remember dates. We're taking how many years ago and I apologize you know. Q. Could it be, ma'am that the first time that you reported the incident that occurred at the traffic circle was around October 2001 when you wrote this statement? A. Yes. When subjected to cross-examination about her two written statements, her confusions, and her lack of personal knowledge of specific details of the alleged curb-side incident, Ms. Tait contradicted her entire testimony as reflected in findings 96, 97, and 98 above, to include the two documents she authored. It is apparent that Ms. Tait's preparation for this hearing, at a minimum included writing a statement three years after the alleged occurrence. It is also reasonable to infer that Ms. Tait's testimony and her 1999 and 2001 documents were an attempt to exaggerate "negative personal conduct on behalf of Mr. Merica" in a decided attempt to appease her employer. Ms. Tait's entire testimony hereinabove, lacks credibility and failed to produce a belief to the undersigned as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established therein. Sexual Harassment of Co-workers Allegations Kelley Kolinsky (f/k/a Toms), a self-employed Occupational Therapist (OT) since 1998, worked at Foster for two and one-half years, doing evaluations and arranging treatment protocol for ESE children. As an OT, she recalled one pre-K evaluation she covered for Kathy Prado, Ph.D., another occupational therapist. Though she tried to recall the persons present at the meeting, she was unable to do so. She recalled an unnamed parent and a unnamed male who were also present. Ms. Kolinsky testified that she was not going to cover any more meetings at Foster. When asked why? Ms. Kolinsky answered: I don't know exactly. It's been like -- I don’t' even know how long, but I just remember being uncomfortable with -- I don't even remember if it was comments or notes, looks, whatever, but something like with the male teacher that was present at the meeting. But it's been so long that I really can't give any more specifics. When asked if during the meeting there was anything of a sexual nature, Ms. Kolinsky replied: I can't say. I mean, I remember I was uncomfortable, but I don't remember specifically now. The Commissioner, by the uncertainty of Ms. Kolinsky's testimony, failed to establish as fact that during the 1994-1999 school years, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker by making inappropriate comments to Ms. Kolinsky, an occupational therapist, in the presence of other colleagues and/or in the presence of a parent as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Kara Twohy was an ESE teacher at Foster from December 1996 through 2000. Ms. Twohy first met Mr. Merica when she was a teacher-intern in an EMH class at Foster during the 1995-1996 school year. Ms. Twohy testified that Mr. Merica made her "feel uncomfortable" giving as an example the following incident: He would do things like put his arms around me. One thing I can remember is he said I had an ink spot on the back of my shirt and he was attempting to rub it off. He would come -- and this is afterwards when I became a teacher -- he would come to the classroom and he brought a rose at one time, and he was constantly -- whether I was at art or I was in the classroom, he was constantly visiting the classroom. I can remember an incident where I was really ill and he came to an assembly and brought me some tissues. All in all, it just made me very uncomfortable. When she was "really ill," Mr. Merica brought her tissues and once gave her a rose. Bringing tissues to one's colleague when the colleague was "really ill" may have been either an appropriate or an inappropriate gesture. However, the act itself does not prove it was sexual harassment. According to Ms. Twohy, she initially expressed her uncomfortable feelings to other unnamed co-workers and Principal Griffin, but not to Mr. Merica. When she told Principal Griffin about her uncomfortable feelings around Mr. Merica, she testified that Principal Griffin said to her: "there's nothing really that anyone could do, but to start writing everything down. So I began writing them down." There is no evidence of record that Principal Griffin initiated an administrative investigation into the "uncomfortable incidents" related to her by the young teacher, Ms. Twohy. It is, thus, reasonable to infer, and I so infer that at the time and under the circumstances, Principal Griffin did not consider that Ms. Twohy's "uncomfortable" feelings resulting from Mr. Merica's attention to have been "sexual harassment" as that term is generally understood when placed in the above situational context. According to Ms. Twohy, after she told Mr. Merica that his presence, his attention, and his conduct made her feel uncomfortable, she recalled he apologized: There was in incident that occurred between him and my aide at the time who was Adele Morris, and basically she told him to leave me alone and he said well, I'm a big girl so I should be able to tell him myself. And he approached me the following day, I believe, after the confrontation and asked me if he made me feel uncomfortable, and I told him yes, he did. I felt very uncomfortable around him and he did apologize and say that he was sorry for making me feel uncomfortable. As a employee of the Board, Ms. Twohy knew the Board’s sexual harassment policy requirement of reporting harassment to the school's administration. She followed the policy by reporting her uncomfortable feelings and concerns to Principal Griffin. When Ms. Twohy informed Mr. Merica that his attention and conduct made her uncomfortable, he immediately discontinued all contact and apologized to her. If, as the Commissioner argued, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy during the time above-stated, she followed protocol and reported the matter to her principal. There is no evidence of record that the principal of Foster initiated or requested an investigation by the School Board and a determination of whether or not Mr. Merica committed the alleged sexual harassment. If the matter was not properly investigated and determined by the Board to have been sexual harassment when it occurred, it will not be determined to be sexual harassment now by the undersigned based solely upon the unconvincing testimony of Ms. Twohy. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, by findings 96 through 103 hereinabove, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Twohy, a co-worker and sexually harassed Ms. Kolinsky, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Kim Kimpton, via her video-taped testimony, was convincing and unequivocal in her response to the question, "[D]o you consider Mr. Merica's action(s) towards you to be sexual harassment? "No, not specifically." The "actions toward you" referred to what was described by the Commissioner as unwanted attention, several instances of on school-property encounters and off school-property encounters, to include buying lunch for her on one or more occasion, giving her presents, and thereafter writing a letter of apology. The Commissioner failed to prove by the evidence of record that during the 1998-1999 school year, Mr. Merica sexually harassed Ms. Kimpton, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica sexually harassed any present or past female member of Foster's administration as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. SLD Student's Version of Classroom Management and Student Control Patricia Rumlin, mother of Jarmaal Rumlin, a 15-year- old SLD student witness who, at the time of the hearing, was in ninth grade, accompanied him at the hearing. When asked, Jarmaal remembered he had been a student in Mr. Merica's class for his fourth and fifth grade school years (1997-1999 school years), but he did not remember the specific school years. During the period Jarmaal was a Foster student, the Board was operating under the self-contained class policy, and Jarmaal was in Mr. Merica's self-contained class throughout the school day. When asked the open-ended question, "[W]hat about the incident when the kids were kicking a ball in the classroom?" Jarmaal gave the following, incomplete, confused, response: We was [sic] playing in the class. Takela kicked the ball to the back of the room and she went to go get it and he trapped us in the back of the room and we bust out and we ran down to the PE field. When asked "[D]id Mr. Merica ever come into any contact or anything with Takela?" Jarmaal, again confused, answered: No. He just holding in the back of the room. [sic] Holding her and she was trying to run and trying to grab her. She was going to fight back, until she got loose and ran. When asked, "[W]hy did you not mention or report this incident to other teachers, the principal [1997-1998/Payne and 1998-1999/Griffin] or the Board’s investigator?" (1999 to 2003) Jarmaal answered: "They didn't talk to me." Jarmaal's above testimony, did not corroborate the testimony of another witness who stated: "Ms. Teresa Joslyn entered a room and found Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal by the arm and yelling in his face and that Ms. Joslyn took him by the hand and stood him up and Principal Griffin came into the room and observed those actions," as argued by the Commissioner in its post-hearing submittal. Jarmaal admitted that "kids in his class misbehaved in class, played kickball and got up and walked around when they were not suppose to." When asked if he liked Mr. Merica, Jarmaal answered "[N]o." When asked if he learned anything in Mr. Merica's class Jarmaal answered, "I didn't learn nothing [sic]." When asked if he wanted Mr. Merica as his teacher again, Jarmaal, answered, "[N]o I don't Mr. Merica as my teacher again." Testimony from other teachers at Foster established that SLD students were, if not daily, most certainly, routinely unruly in their classes and in hallways. Jarmaal's testimony seemed rehearsed, but he was confused about the facts critical to the situation of which he testified. The witness' inability to recall and his manner of testifying raised substantial issues of the witness' credibility primarily because of his seemingly rehearsed responses and confused factual response, often mixing several parts of separate incidents. Through the testimony of Jarmaal, a SLD student, the Commissioner failed to demonstrate and prove by example that: (1) Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate discipline, (2) he failed to engage in meaningful teaching methods, (3) he lacked professional classroom control and management of his SLD class, and (4) he was incompetent as a teacher, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. I find the SLD students' reply he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer that the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Tawnya Clark, mother of Demetrie White, another 15- year-old SLD student, accompanied him in the hearing. Demetrie only remembered attending Foster. He did not remember the years he attended Foster (1997-1998/Principal Payne and 1998- 1999/Principal Griffin). He did not remember the grades he was in when he was attending Foster. He did not remember the class (fourth and fifth grades) he was in when Mr. Merica was his teacher. When asked "[I]n what ways Mr. Merica would get upset?" Demetrie, hesitantly, gave the following response: When like students get like up out of they seat and walk around the classroom and talk to other students, he'd get mad then and then after that he'd like -- Jonathan he would be like getting up out of his seat and talk to me, Eldrid and another friend who go to my school and he would like grab Jonathan, try to twist his wrist and then slam him on the ground and then Jonathan would be like, Get up off me. And then that's when like he would like flip. He would try to get up off the ground, Jonathan. That is when he tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. That's it. Demetrie admitted that the kids would get up and walk around in class when they were not supposed to do so. He admitted that Jonathan tried to grab Mr. Merica's neck. He remembered a female teacher's aide but he did not remember her name or whether she was black or white. As with Jarmaal, Demetrie remembered Mr. Merica yelling at students when they were acting up. He remembered Mr. Merica yelling in the faces of students. Demetrie, like Jarmaal, said he did not like Mr. Merica, "he didn't learn nothing" and he "didn't want Mr. Merica as his teacher again." Utter confusion permeated Demetrie’s understanding of the questions asked of him and his seemingly rehearsed answers to those questions. I find the SLD student's reply that he did not "like" Mr. Merica an insufficient foundation from which to infer the SLD student did not "respect" Mr. Merica as a teacher. Viewed most favorably, the testimonies of these two very large young boys consisted of a confused misunderstanding of questions asked of them and their rehearsed answers. The testimony of these two young boys established that at times, Mr. Merica yelled at them and, on occasion, restrained them for his personal defense and/or to regain classroom control when they were acting out of control, being disobedient, playing kickball in the class room, and yelling at each other and at him. The situational circumstances of the separate incidents to which the witnesses testified occurred four or five years earlier. These two SLD students were confused, and their testimony consisted of a mixture and intermingling of critical factual portions of two separate incidents into one continuous dialogue. From their individual and collective testimony, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of Mr. Merica's conduct, in an attempt to control and manage his SLD class, cannot be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty to produce a firm belief as to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The ambiguity created by the testimony of Jarmaal and Demetrie relating to a specific portion of their testimony related to a specific incident is decided in favor of Mr. Merica. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained" Takela, a student in his SLD class, by holding her arm. The Commissioner proved that Mr. Merica "restrained” Jonathan, a student in his class, by holding the wrist and arm of Jonathan. Based upon the testimony of these two young SLD students, assuming accuracy and truth, Mr. Merica’s physical restraining actions were, given the circumstances and situation at the time of physical restraints, appropriate for the defense of his person and for the protection of other students in the class. Disagreement Over IEP Content and Student Control In 1995 Ms. Teresa Joslyn began teaching at Foster Elementary as an EMH teacher. She affirmed other witnesses' testimonies that Mr. Merica was loud and argumentatively disruptive during staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Joslyn, however, gave unconvincing testimony regarding one IEP meeting she attended with Mr. Merica, but she could not provide the month or school year the IEP meeting occurred. According to Ms. Joslyn, during this IEP meeting an unnamed parent wanted unspecified items included in her unnamed child’s IEP, and Mr. Merica, the teacher, was apparently of the opinion that those items desired by this parent were not necessary. The IEP in question was not entered into evidence. When asked whose opinion determined the make up of the IEP, Ms. Joslyn replied, "[t]he case manager, who is generally the teacher [Mr. Merica in this instance]-- the person that serves the child the most.” During this particular IEP meeting, and with no evidence, or personal knowledge of the specific IEP items under discussion, Ms. Joslyn never the less concluded an unspecified position maintained by Mr. Merica was unreasonable and, by implication, unprofessional, and the position taken by the unidentified parent was reasonable. Ms. Joslyn's testimony is not credible, competent or of substantial weight to support a firm belief of the truth of the allegations sought to be established. Ms. Joslyn, without giving the year or month, remembered occasions when she would visit Mr. Merica’s classroom. According to Ms. Joslyn: On the occasion(s) when I would enter Mr. Merica's room, oftentimes I did not find him engaged in active teaching. There were times when I would walk in and he was--there was a game on the computer that he was playing or he'd be reading the newspaper or magazine at his desk. The aides -- the children would --have may or may not have worksheets on their desks and the aides seemed to be the ones that were more engaged with the children. Ms. Joslyn testified again, unconvincingly, about one incident she remembered, but she was unable to provide the month or year, when she heard a "kind of ruckus and loud voices." She remembered hearing an unnamed child's voice and Mr. Merica's voice, but she did not hear the words being spoken by either person. She supposedly entered the room and saw Mr. Merica seated on a couch holding Jarmaal (Rumlin) by the arm and Jarmaal trying to resist and get up. Continuing, she also remembered that Mr. Merica was agitated, upset, and yelling, and the child was also yelling. Ms. Joslyn specifically recalled that while she was "taking Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." According to Ms. Joslyn, both "the Principal" (Griffin) and Jarmaal were actively involved in this arm holding incident. Principal Griffin did not corroborate Ms. Joslyn's vague and non-specific memory of an undated arm holding incident. Jarmaal was not asked about this specific incident nor did he corroborate Ms. Joslyn's testimony. No other witness called by the Commissioner gave corroborating testimony in support of Ms. Joslyn’s testimony. This is critical to the credibility determination in this proceeding since allegations of inappropriate conduct in his professional relations with children are specifically alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and form the bases, in part, to support the allegation of professional incompetence. I find that Ms. Joslyn's vague, non-specific testimony, without corroboration of the other alleged participants to establish the context, circumstances, and time, raised substantial issues of her credibility. Her testimony and credibility was further diminished by the lack of corroborating evidence from other witnesses who were allegedly involved. The testimony contained in findings 128 and 129 hereinabove is rejected for its lack of credibility. I find that the Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Joslyn, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was not engaged in active teaching and that on unidentified occasions he was playing computer games or reading a newspaper or magazine while some unidentified staff taught his class and failed to prove that Mr. Merica engaged in inappropriate conduct by "holding Jarmaal by the hand and Merica letting go of Jarmaal's arm at which point the principal came into the room and asked Mr. Merica to come into her office." The Commissioner has failed to prove that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Debbie Maronic, physical education teacher at Foster, gave repetitive testimony affirming the fact that Mr. Merica was loud, often disruptive, and sometimes argumentative with colleagues at staff and faculty meetings. Ms. Maronic also testified of having heard "numerous stories about how Mr. Merica behaved inappropriately to other female staff members at meetings or in the hallway or other places," without recalling any one of those numerous stories. Ms. Maronic admitted that she heard her information, not from Kelly and Kim Rivenburg, the females alleged to have been recipients of inappropriate conduct, but from second-hand people. The hearsay upon hearsay summary testimony of "stories" Ms. Maronic heard regarding inappropriate conduct toward females is not competent to establish a finding of fact. The testimony of Ms. Maronic is rejected in toto by the undersigned. When the testimony of Ms. Kolinsky, Ms. Twohy, and Ms. Kimpton, that they were not sexually harassed by Mr. Merica, is juxtaposed to the hearsay upon hearsay testimony of Ms. Maronic that Mr. Merica "behaved inappropriately to other female staff members," a pattern of gossip, moving from witness to witness presented by the Commissioner, emerges for which there is no defense and very little, if any, truth to be objectively determined. The uncorroborated testimony of this witness lack credibility and is rejected. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Maronic, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica engaged in unprofessional conduct, inappropriate conduct, and/or sexually harassed female co-workers as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Ms. Maronic testified, again unconvincingly, concerning a throwing incident in the school cafeteria in 1999, she did not observe and therefore could not provide situational circumstances surrounding this incident. According to Ms. Maronic, as she walked by she could see Mr. Merica out in the hallway very upset and yelling very loudly at very close proximity to the unidentified students. Ms. Maronic testified that she was not "comfortable" witnessing that situation and would not leave the area until an administrator came. Nothing in her testimony identified the administrator who allegedly came so she could leave; she knew nothing, who, what, where, when or why, about the incident, though so "uncomfortable," she believed her presence was required. She neither attempted to record this "uncomfortable" incident for future reference nor did she report the matter directly to the school administration. This testimony was not internally consistent and the character of this witness' testimony, as well as the witness' demeanor, did exaggerate the nature or circumstances of the incident. The testimony of this witness lacks precise explicitness to produce a belief as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact through the testimony of Ms. Maronic that, at some unspecified time in 1999, Mr. Merica's student behavior management was inappropriate or that Mr. Merica demonstrated professional incompetence as alleged in the Amended Administrative Compliant. Professional Assistance Offered by Resource Teachers Virginia King, with over 21 years of teaching experience, held the position of Hillsborough County, Area IV, administrative resource teacher (ART) since 1981. Ms. King's primary duty was to provide support and training for teachers of ESE. Her three-part support and training program consisted of: (1) teacher evaluation followed by (2) teacher assistance and concluded with (3) specific training for the teacher. Ms. King was not qualified as an expert. Based solely upon her experience, Ms. King opined that--"dealing with student behavior issues are [sic] challenging to teachers and most difficult for teachers in emotionally handicapped full time programs,” as was Mr. Merica. She further opined that "both SLD and ESE classes have behavior issues; but, in full-time ESE classes, student behavior control is most difficult for teachers regarding overall classroom control and classroom management, as compared to full-time programs where teachers of PI classes classroom control and management is least difficult." Ms. King testified that in her 21 years of teaching experience, many ESE teachers have difficulty with classroom behavior and management issues, and the training of teachers of those students is ongoing training in the Hillsborough County school system that never ceases. She is of the opinion that yelling in students' faces is unreasonable and physically restraining a student is "never" justified. Ms. King's opinion regarding physical restraint of a student is "never" justified conflicts with the statutory authority of teacher(s) to remove disrespectful, violent, uncontrollable or disruptive students from classes when appropriate, to include physical restraint, as provided in Subsection 1003.32(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2003). The Commissioner did not introduce evidence of physical restraints standards adopted by the Board of Education. The opinion of Ms. King is contrary to the statute and disregarded for all purposes in this proceeding. Proffered Evaluation and Assistance Offered to Respondent During the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin requested that Ms. King visit Foster to evaluate, assist, train, and help Mr. Merica with his SLD class. According to Ms. King (without giving the year and month), she made two visits to Mr. Merica's class. She testified only about her initial visit that took place during the morning class session. When she returned for a second visit, the school administration had removed Mr. Merica from his teaching position. This one visit by Ms. King was the first step of her three-part support and training program, i.e. teacher evaluation. There was no teacher assistance and specific training offered to Mr. Merica by Ms. King. When asked to give her "general impression" of Mr. Merica's professional ability and competence to teach SLD students after just one visit, Ms. King replied: Well, in our interview I was a little surprised because I didn't really -- he has a background in SLD so he had a lot of knowledge of SLD and how to teach children with learning disabilities, addressing their different learning styles and I was actually able to observe that in class. It was a math class and I thought that he did a very nice job of addressing the student's individual needs, and that's a difficult thing to do because they're all so different and they were all at different math levels and I did see that he was able to use different teaching techniques all in one lesson. He did mention to me that -- well, I knew that there were behavior problems and I did see behavior problems and that did happen after the lesson in the transition period. The children were unruly and not really doing, you know -- you could tell that there was a lack of control was obvious. But at this particular time, the children had been really fairly well-behaved and he had mentioned to me that I should come back in the afternoon -- because this was a morning visit -- that I should come back in the afternoon so that I could see their true behavior which he said was truly out of control. Through the testimony of Ms. King, the Commissioner, clearly and convincingly, proved to the undersigned that during the 1999-2000 school year, Mr. Merica's competence as a professional teacher of children with learning disabilities ("the children had been really fairly well-behaved") was the same as and/or equal to competence as a professional teacher in the classroom of other teachers of children with learning disabilities whom the witness had observed. Conversely, the Commissioner failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, through the testimony of this witness that Mr. Merica demonstrated "incompetence" in his classroom teaching skills or that his classroom student behavior management was ineffective. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica utilized ineffective lesson plans and ineffective classroom behavioral management plans. The Commissioner failed to prove that Mr. Merica failed to keep students academically engaged in class and that he failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner failed to establish as fact, through Ms. King's testimony regarding her single classroom visit, that Foster administration, by and through Principal Griffin, offered Mr. Merica meaningful, professional, constructive help and assistance program plan that he intentionally disregarded and that he failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The record evidence does not specify whether Ms. King's one visit occurred during the school year of 1998- 1999 or the school year of 1999-2000. This omission creates an ambiguity between the year 1999 (alleged in the complaint) and the year 2000 (the year beyond the time alleged in the complaint). The ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. The testimony in findings of fact 139 and 140 is incompetent and irrelevant to establish as fact allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. The Commissioner presented testimony of Sue Hindman. Ms. Hindman, with over 27 years of teaching experience and at all times material, was an ART and an ESE supervisor for Area II, in Hillsborough County. Model Classroom Observation Prior to and in Preparation for Termination by the Hillsborough County School Board Near the end of the 1999-2000 school year, Principal Griffin called Ms. Hindman and requested her to do a model classroom observation of Mr. Merica's class. A "model classroom observation" consisted of Ms. Hindman's selecting another classroom and SLD teacher (the model) in the same or similar position of the teacher (Mr. Merica) to be observed. The teacher (Mr. Merica) being observed, along with Ms. Hindman, would then visit the "model" SLD class to observe how the classroom itself was arranged and how the lessons were presented to SLD students. Based on the teacher's personal observation, and with the help and assistance of Ms. Hindman, the teacher (Mr. Merica) would then modify and model his/her classroom arrangement, classroom behavior management, SLD students' lesson planning and presentation, and other educational matters involved with teaching SLD students to that observed in the model classroom. After a reasonable period of adjustment, the ART would return to evaluate the "results of implemented changes" made after the model classroom. On October 8, 1999, after observing Mr. Merica's classroom, his teaching, his student control and classroom management, and after observation of the model SLD teacher and classroom, Ms. Hindman made unspecified suggestions for improvement to Mr. Merica. After she made her suggestions for improvement, Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her unspecified, suggested improvements had been accepted and put into effect by Mr. Merica, and, if so, to document what results were observed. Ms. Hindman documented improvements she noted in Mr. Merica's class on her return visit as follows: The new behavior rules were typed clearly and colorfully. The post-it-notes [tickets] were being used to reward positive [student] behavior. Instructions was hampered by inappropriate student behaviors. On October 18, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a second follow-up visit to observe the progress of her earlier unspecified suggestions. During this second return visit, Ms. Hindman made additional unspecified suggestions for improvement. Ms. Hindman returned to observe whether her second suggested improvement had been put into place and if so, the effect and impact of her second suggestions. Ms. Hindman documented improvements observed in Mr. Merica's classroom management and student control and professional teaching competency on her second return visit as follows: Student behavior was better. Students responded to the LLP redirections. They also responded to the additional tickets given for good behavior. More positive comments were made when students were on task. Student behavior will improve as teacher consistency improves. The more aggressive students are getting, all the attention (and tickets) while the good students tend to be neglected. Curriculum must now become a priority. Your students really settle down while working on assignments and seem eager to accomplish tasks. Capitalize on that momentum! On October 26, 1999, Ms. Hindman made a third return visit to observe Mr. Merica's implementation of her earlier suggestions. During this visit, Ms. Hindman made additional suggestions for improvement and documented improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom teaching and classroom management and student control as follows: Reading groups began today using a sequential program. Math groups began learning higher skills plus using manipulative. Individual work folders were used for seatwork. Through the testimony and corroborating documentation of Ms. Hindman, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that as late as October 26, 1999, Mr. Merica accepted and implemented constructive criticism and assistance from those administrators whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The Commissioner failed to prove, through the testimony of Ms. Hindman, as it did through the testimony of Ms. King, allegations that Mr. Merica intentionally disregarded and failed and refused to accept and implement the suggested offering of assistance. The undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman clearly demonstrated that when given constructive professional assistance, a reasonable opportunity to implement the constructive assistance, and an objective evaluation thereafter, Mr. Merica was amenable and put into practice professional assistance and suggestions that proved to be helpful. He responded positively by implementing suggestions made by Ms. Hindman and to those made by Ms. King. During each return visit by Ms. Hindman, Mr. Merica demonstrated continued improvement in his professional ability as a SLD teacher. I find that through the testimony and resulting documentation of three separate occasions of Ms. Hindman rendering professional help and assistance and Mr. Merica's positive response thereto established as fact that the competence of Mr. Merica was not diminished so as to impair his effectiveness as a teacher in the Hillsborough County school system as of October 26, 1999.5 Petitioner's Presence Outside His Classroom, His Teaching, and Classroom Management Mr. Merica presented the undisputed testimony of Mary Evans-Bauman, a DEEDS Attendant who worked with over 15 teachers during her employment at Foster. From January through July of the 1997-1998 school year, Ms. Evans-Bauman was assigned and did work with Mr. Merica in his self-contained PI class. She did not work with Mr. Merica during any period he was teaching a SLD class. According to Ms. Evans-Bauman, Mr. Merica did not leave his classroom more often than any of the other 15 teachers with whom she worked during her employment at Foster. Based upon her daily observations, Ms. Evans-Bauman opined that Mr. Merica's PI students respected him, and she did not observe any problems with his classroom management. She denied observing Mr. Merica playing video games or reading newspapers when he should have been teaching. She testified that she never observed Mr. Merica exhibiting out-of-control behavior or imposing inappropriate discipline on students in his PI class. She acknowledged that PI students, because of their restricted physical mobility, were less likely to become disruptive and unruly because of their physical limitations. Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Carolyn Mobley. Ms. Mobley worked 21 years at Foster as a teacher's aide and as a DEES attendant. During her extended tenure at Foster, she worked with approximately ten different teachers, including Mr. Merica. Ms. Mobley began working with Mr. Merica during the 1998-1999 school year, the first year he taught a PI class with Ms. Payne as principal. She continued working with Mr. Merica when Principal Griffin moved him to an SLD class during the 1999-2000 school year. According to Ms. Mobley, she worked with Mr. Merica continuously, five days per week for seven and one- half hours per day, for two consecutive years. Based upon her continuous presence in Mr. Merica's classrooms, she had abundant opportunities to observe Mr. Merica's interactions with students in both his PI and SLD classes; she answered the question of how she would characterize his relationship with his students as follows: I would say he didn't have no problems that I would consider problems because I have kids and I wouldn't want nobody to mistreat mine, and I'm a fair person. On the mistreating kids in any way question, Ms. Mobley answered: No. He always seemed to be generosity [sic]. He would always treat them with respect and do the things most teachers wouldn't do, I would say. On what kind of things he would do that other teacher wouldn't do, Ms. Mobley answered: Well, you know, sometimes if they didn't have their lunch and they wanted something, then he would treat them to it, you know. On Fridays when they had free time, he would give it to them out of the cafeteria. Answering the question whether she observed Mr. Merica being off task--off his teaching duties during the time that you were the aide in the PI class, i.e. reading a newspaper during the time when he should have been teaching or playing computer games during the time he should have been teaching, Ms. Mobley answered: "No." Answering the question whether Mr. Merica would leave the classroom and leave the aides to take care of the kids, Mr. Mobley answered: No, because if he left the classroom, he would say, "I'm going to the office," run some papers or basically we knew where each other was. We always knew. Answering the questions whether Mr. Merica leaving the class occurred more often than other teachers, acting in an unprofessional way, being belligerent, and being confrontational with students, Ms. Mobley answered each question "No." Answering the question whether there were more behavioral problems in the SLD class than in the PI class, Ms. Mobley answered: SLD kids do have a behavior, [sic] where PI kind is not as verbal word-wise--. Answering the compound question of Mr. Merica's interactions with students in the SLD class, acting in an unprofessional way to any of the kids, being belligerent with the children, being hostile with the children, and being confrontational with any of the children, Ms. Mobley answered: "No" to each question within the compound question. Answering the compound questions of whether Mr. Merica raised his voice toward the students; talked loud when he was close to a student, screamed, or yelled, Ms Mobley answered: I wouldn't say raise his voice, but he talked loud, like scream or yell- No. Well he always talked loud, so to me it was always a loud voice. He don't have a soft voice. He had a loud voice. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Mobley, Mr. Merica demonstrated that from the school year beginning in 1998 and ending in 1999 his teaching and student behavior management, as observed by Ms. Mobley, was not ineffective; that he did not frequently leave his own class with his aides; that he did not walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students; and, when in class, that he did not play video games on his computer, read newspapers, or review architectural designs, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Human Resources Manager's Testimony Based upon her Summary Reports of Letters and Reports Received From Staff The Commissioner presented, as a summary witness, the testimony of Janice Velez.6 Ms. Velez had over 30 years in the school system during which time she has occupied the positions of classroom teacher, teacher trainer, school-based administrator, and director of personnel services. For four years (1999-2003), she occupied the position of General Manager of Human Resources (HR) for the School Board. The Commissioner did not qualify Ms. Velez as an expert. As director of personnel services for the School Board, Ms. Velez receives information, via written reports from Foster administration, from individual teachers, from medical personnel, and from other sources regarding school personnel. Ms. Velez rarely, if ever, has personal knowledge of instructional personnel activities at the many schools in the county, before such activities are reported to her in written form through the chain of administrative protocol. It is noted that her reports in evidence are not sworn to or notarized by the person(s) with personal knowledge nor are they "tested" for accuracy by independent investigation by Ms. Velez. She accepts each report as factually accurate. It was against this background and based upon many such unspecified reports that Ms. Velez summarized and posted a letter to Mr. Merica reflecting her summarized version of those hearsay reports that the Commissioner asked Ms. Velez to "explain" the first sentence of her July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. The sentence counsel for the Commissioner asked for as an explanation read: "Some information has come to my attention that you and I need to discuss." To the question "explain what did you mean by that sentence," Ms. Velez answered with the following editorial: What he acknowledged, and I don't have the report in front of me, but I remember the student was a difficult child and he had -- what upset me and the reason I asked him about the ACT [Aggression Control Techniques] certified was that in the course of taking care of this child, had dragged her across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process. That's when I asked him if had had been trained and he said no, he had never been scheduled. There is no evidence that tends to corroborate the hearsay evidence contained in Ms. Velez's July 1, 1994, letter to Mr. Merica. Ms. Velez did not possess personal knowledge of the information reflected in her letter. Consequently, her testimony regarding Mr. Merica's alleged response merely amounts to hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. There is no record evidence identifying the context and circumstances of "[w]hat he acknowledged” as testified to by Ms. Velez. The intended inference that Mr. Merica acknowledged-—“that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her across the carpet or something," was not corroborated by any "other adult present that assisted him." Mr. Merica's denial "that he dragged her across the carpet or something," even if unbelievable, does not prove the Commissioner's accusation contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez’s recollection explanation is an assumption and not fact (that he dragged a child and other students and adults were present). Based upon her assumption, Ms. Velez concluded that Mr. Merica acknowledged her assumption as fact. The assumption and conclusion of “acknowledgement” by Mr. Merica of that assumption is incompetent, not credible and insufficient to establish the incident as fact or to establish that Mr. Merica admitted and acknowledged her assumptions and her conclusions “that in the course of taking care of this child, he dragged her [a child] across the carpet or something and then other adults were present that assisted him in the process." Ms. Velez testified that she met with Mr. Merica on four separate occasions, the first meeting occurred on or about the first week in July 1994, during the period Ms. Payne was principal. At the time of her first meeting with Mr. Merica in July of 1994, Ms. Velez was not general manager of HR for the Board. The evidence of record does not establish Ms. Velez’s position in the school system in July 1994, other than she was a teacher assigned to personnel services. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that during the first week in July 1994, she was “initially concerned” because Mr. Merica was not ACT certified. The Board's policy required each teacher to be ACT certified before engaging in physical restraint of students. In 1993 to 1994, Ms. Velez was a teacher assigned to personnel services, and the record evidence does not provide any authority for her to “meet with Mr. Merica” as a part of her duties in personnel services. There is no evidence of record that Principal Payne, who was principal and who did not corroborate this story, requested Ms. Velez’s involvement with her teachers, including Mr. Merica. Assuming Ms. Velez had authority to read Mr. Merica’s personnel file, why in 1994 did she only recall his restraint certification status? Principal Payne testified that she, and she alone, identified Mr. Merica's needs for improvement and provided him with useful suggestions that he incorporated and showed improvement. Principal Payne buttressed her testimony by giving Mr. Merica all "satisfactory" annual performance evaluations. Ms. Velez's testimony regarding any facet of Mr. Merica professional competence in the school year of 1994 to the contrary is not accepted by the undersigned as credible evidence. The Commissioner, through the testimonies of 21 witnesses, failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Merica exhibited any indicia of professional incompetence in July of 1994. Through the testimony of Ms. Velez the Commissioner again affirmed other witnesses' testimony that Mr. Merica was not ACT certified at certain periods. However, the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Mr. Merica’s last year of ACT certification was the year of 1995 and not, as Ms. Velez mistakenly assumed in her testimony, 1994. The Commissioner failed in its attempt to establish 1994 as the beginning year of Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence through the above testimony by Ms. Velez. In 1999, Ms. Velez was appointed to the HR position. Six years before, in 1993, she was in personnel services. It was during the 1993-1994 period that the Commissioner sought through her testimony to prove Mr. Merica knowingly admitted and acknowledged that in July 1994 "he used excessive force or restrained a [unidentified] child inappropriately as reported by a parent [unidentified] to the police department and the school internal investigators." The bare hearsay "admission against interest" hearsay statements of unproven acts from unidentified hearsay sources is not corroborated and is rejected by the undersigned. Ms. Velez gave her explanation of meeting with Mr. Merica for a second time on August 12, 1999, which she later reduced to a letter dated September 24, 1999. In that letter Ms. Velez recited the purpose of the August 12, 1999, meeting-- "for discussion of an investigative report into coworker's allegation that during the summer he made threatening remarks against the school administration and comments made about Principal Griffin, i.e. "She dyed her hair blond to get her job, "I got rid of one principal; I'll get rid of her too," and "If she wants to go head-to-head, then I'll win." In her 1999 letter, Ms. Velez stated that Mr. Merica admitted making the alleged statements, explaining the statements were "hearsay" and because, as he viewed the situation, "others wanted to bring [him] down to their own misery levels." Her third meeting with Mr. Merica occurred in September of 1999. This meeting, she explained, was convened "for discussion of a letter of reprimand written by Principal Payne." (In February 1998, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a letter of reprimand citing him for having acted in an "unprofessional manner" with Pam Wilkins, an ESE coworker.) Later during that school year when she evaluated his overall professional teaching performance, Principal Payne gave Mr. Merica a "satisfactory" rating in every area, without comments, for the 1998-1999 school year. This meeting and the letter of reprimand concerned Mr. Merica's professional conduct on two separate incidents. Those two incidents were a faculty meeting disruption and a school improvement team and parent meeting. No testimony was elicited or given by Ms. Velez regarding the situational circumstances attendant to those two incidents. When asked her opinion of Mr. Merica's "attitude" toward her during this third meeting, Ms. Velez replied: I would say it ranged in the typical realm of employees. When they meet with me sometimes they're angry. He was in denial that the letter was warranted. He said he didn't perceive himself to have lost his temperament. He did not recall -- in one of the two incidents, someone said he banged his hand or fist on the table. I don't recall doing that. There were several letters that the principal also forwarded to me from colleagues and they said that he was out of control. He said, I'm not out of control. I have a loud voice. And basically he was in denial that the incident was as significant as the principal had alleged in her letter or reprimand. The fourth meeting between Ms. Velez and Mr. Merica occurred on October 1, 1999. Also present at the meeting were Carl Crosson, CTA representative, and Dr. David Binnie, assistant superintendent for HR. The purpose of this fourth meeting was to discuss a specific classroom incident that had occurred on or about September 23, 1999, where it was alleged that Mr. Merica retained five students in the classroom due to their misbehavior while the other students went to lunch with the paraprofessional. In her 1999 letter, in the first paragraph, Ms. Velez wrote her version of an incident she did not personally observe: During the timeout period, you asked these students to sit quietly in their desks, while you placed your own lunch in the microwave. When they began to dance about the room and to toss and roll a kickball among themselves, you summoned several times for assistance on the intercom. During this period, you stated you remained at your desk, although once you tried to kick the ball away and once you moved your elbows in an effort to keep a student from retrieving the ball that had rolled behind your chair. Another student subsequently hit you on the head with a folder, and you chased him briefly until he, at your direction put the folder down. You summoned additional times for assistance. Continuing with the second paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: As a result of your poor performance this year, and its negative impact on the quality and continuity of instruction for students assigned to you, your principal recommended that you be either administratively transferred or dismissed as a teacher. Actions on these recommendations was placed in abeyance since you asked for, and Dr. Binnie granted, additional time and assistance from school and district personnel for you to develop and implement a plan to appropriately regain control of and develop respect from your students. He provided you with three days of paid duty time and a month of implementation to accomplish this end. In her last paragraph, Ms. Velez stated: Dr. Binnie will review the effectiveness of your plan, your professional conduct at work, and your future employment status during a meeting scheduled for Monday, November 1, 1999, at 3:45 pm in the Human Resources conference room, 2nd floor of the School Administration Center, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard. Ms. Brenda Griffin, your principal, has also been invited to attend. Ms. Velez testified that the November 1, 1999, meeting never occurred, "due to an error where [sic] his address was not in the system correctly, he was not in attendance at the meeting. So, we rescheduled it for November 3rd." Considering Mr. Merica was an employee with 13 years of service and had met four times with administration within a six-month period (July through October 1999), the loss of his address--"his address was not in the system correctly"--by the Board becomes suspect. Continuing, Ms. Velez testified that: [O]n November 2nd her office received a call from Foster Elementary School regarding an incident in the hallway that teacher could hear Mr. Merica scream at a child and described that he was in their face and we removed Mr. Merica from teaching at that time for a continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament, creating a dangerous situation for children. (emphasis added) No witness presented by the Commissioner testified to having observed the incident above described by Ms. Velez. When subjected to cross-examination, Ms. Velez reluctantly admitted that her intentional use of the term “creating a dangerous situation for children" was not an accurate statement. During all times (1999-2000) pertinent to matters herein above, the goal of Principal Griffin, via Ms. Velez and through the Board, was to terminate Mr. Merica's employment with the Board. Thus, the HR manager's intentional selection and use of the statutory phrase, “creating a dangerous situation for children," that she knew at the time to be an inaccurate statement, revealed her intent and thus seriously undermined her credibility. The witness' credibility and testimony were further diminished by the fact that at the time she knowingly made her "inaccurate statement," she was an active participant in, and thus fully aware of, the Board's engagement in the procedural protocol process of terminating Mr. Merica's contractual employment. Ms. Velez's knowing misrepresentation, that Mr. Merica's continuing pattern of being unable to control his students and control his temperament was "creating a dangerous situation for children," was biased and inaccurate. Ms. Velez's unconvincing explanation of her understanding of the factual basis for the School Board's removal of Mr. Merica from teaching at Foster was vague: [B]ased on a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children. When asked to clarify her inaccurate misrepresentation of whether or not Mr. Merica's conduct resulted in an unacceptable environment or created a dangerous situation for children, Ms. Velez stated: "[D]uring the five years Mr. Merica taught the PI student class [from 1992-1993 to 1998-1999], Mr. Merica’s conduct and teaching did not create an environment that was dangerous to the students in those classes." Ms. Velez further testified that "[T]the [Hillsborough County School] Board determined that it was during the 1999-20007 school year a pattern of similar incidents, and this was at the end of that month of time to focus on how to become more effectively -- more effectively deal with children, that Mr. Merica was creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Ms. Velez did not identify incidents that occurred August 12, 1999, through December 31, 1999, separate and apart from incidents that occurred between January 1, through May 24, 2000; thus, there is no basis to determine whether alleged incidents occurred in 1999 or 2000. Her testimony included "essential and substantial facts in support of the allegation" having occurred in a timeframe (1999- 2000) not embraced in the 1994-1999 period (ending December 31, 1999) alleged in the Statement of Charges of the Amended Administrative Complaint. "[T]the allegata and probata must correspond and agree." This ambiguity is resolved in favor of Mr. Merica. On that basis the testimony of Ms. Velez in findings 183 through 186, hereinabove is rejected. The Commissioner did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that during the period between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica "created a pattern of similar incidents thus creating an environment that was dangerous to the students in his classes." Conversely, through the testimony of Ms. Velez, the Commissioner proved, clearly and convincingly, that "during the 1992-1993 through the 1998-1999," including the 1994 through 1999 period alleged in the complaint, Mr. Merica did not engage in a pattern of similar incidents that created a dangerous situation for children." Regarding the school year when allegedly Mr. Merica initially became or his teaching methods demonstrated incompetence, Ms. Velez demonstrated a lack of knowledge and lack of expertise by her following qualified answer: It was my feeling--my personal and professional feeling when I reviewed the file--that he had indicators of incompetence for quite some time, especially in his personal conduct. I am not an expert in curriculum. It's been a long time since I taught in the classroom. [emphasis added] But Mr. Merica's statement to me was he's the best teacher that was at Foster Elementary, and I had an opportunity to look at his lesson plans one afternoon when I went to meet with Ms. Griffin and although I haven't written them in years, there were no lesson plans. They were subjects. Math, math, math. Nothing to distinguish between the levels of his children. When I reviewed the record at Foster, his conduct that created an uncomfortable working environment for employees had been there a long time. The former principal, Ms. Payne, had dealt with it from time to time. It's my professional opinion that she put him in physically impaired so he had less opportunity to be inappropriate with children, and she began then to deal with his personal conduct issues. So to answer your question, I believe -- I don't know that -- I don't know when it began, but I don't think it surfaced his last assignment at Foster, but rather sometime prior to that. [emphasis added] Ms. Velez was unable to identify the school year Mr. Merica became, as she characterized, "incompetent in his personal conduct." Ms. Velez's personal feeling of incompetence is an inadequate standard by which to measure professional competence, to include one’s personal conduct. Ms. Velez did not know when, if at all, Mr. Merica's alleged professional incompetence, to include his alleged personal conduct, began. The evidence of record established that the Board, as of January 13, 2000, had concluded its investigation and made a final determination that Mr. Merica was incompetent. Therefore, the Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, through the summary testimony of Ms. Velez that Mr. Merica was or to began to become incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 19997 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Violation of a penal statute or rule is not found on loose interpretations of the Human Resource Director with 31 total years of education experience and a Master's Degree in Education Administration, or based on problematic evidence. Evidence more objective and substantial of critical matters in issue should be as substantial as the consequences. Clear and convincing evidence is not present in this record nor established by testimony presented by this witness that Mr. Merica was incompetent, as demonstrated by his professional teaching skills, at any time during the 1994 through 1999 period as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Ms. Velez testified that teachers hired by contract (as was Mr. Merica), a veteran teacher, or a tenured teacher are required to be evaluated once annually by their principal, and the purpose of the principal's annual evaluation is for performance improvement. The testimony and documents prepared by Ms. Velez regarding a report from an unidentified mother about her unidentified child is unconfirmed, uncorroborated, incompetent, and thus insufficient to establish any purported facts of actual occurrence. Following protocol and to effectuate his contractual termination with the Board, on November 18, 1999, Ms. Velez submitted four of her letters, dated July 1, September 14 and 24, and October 20, 1999, to James A. Edgar, M.D., P.A., as the basis for her referral of Mr. Merica to Dr. Edgar for a psychiatric evaluation that was conducted by Dr. Edgar on November 18 and 23, 1999. Accepting as accurate and true the content of Ms. Velez's four letters and using those letters as the foundation of his examination, Dr. Edgar evaluated Mr. Merica. At the conclusion of his examination, Dr. Edgar opined that Mr. Merica did not have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder, either Axis I or Axis II, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.). According to Dr. Edgar, "None of the problems, as reflected in Ms. Velez's summary taken from non-notarized reports from unnamed third parties, makes him in and of themselves incapable of functioning as a teacher." He then goes on to qualify his opinion with a "[H]owever, taken together they 'could' make him very difficult to work with as part of a team effort.” Dr. Edgar's evaluation resulted in a qualified conclusion that Mr. Merica is aware of his actions but minimizes or denies the effect of those actions on others and thus rationalizes his verbal aggressive behavior as his "constitutional right" to express his opinion. From that position, Dr. Edgar reaches what appears to be the desired conclusion that: "Mr. Merica's current behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same. I can not say whether he might become more aggressive or violent but I do believe his behavior will not improve." The attempt to lay a factual foundation that Mr. Merica's alleged incompetence was present in 1994 through the conclusiory testimony of Dr. Edgar failed for want of competence. The one line in Dr. Edgar's 1999 opinion that Mr. Merica's "behavior does not appear to be an escalation of previous behavior just more of the same," is insufficient in weight and substance to establish as fact and/or establish the basis from which to infer, and I do not infer, that in 1994, Mr. Merica demonstrated an "aggressive behavior," which demonstrated emotional "incompetence," and that behavior continued through 1999 as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent's Response to Allegations Mr. Merica presented the testimony of Janice Wilson who worked as a DEES attendant at Foster from 1992 through 1998. Ms. Wilson was Mr. Merica's DEES attendant during the 1997-1998 school year and worked all day, five days a week, with Mr. Merica in his classroom when he taught PI students. She was not his DEES attendant when Mr. Merica taught SLD students. For the six-year period, 1992-1998, Ms. Wilson was in Mr. Merica’s classroom daily. She had occasion to observe his teaching as she worked with Mr. Merica. Based on her six-year association, Ms. Wilson testified as follows: When asked how would she characterize his rapport with his students, she answered: "wonderful, wonderful." When asked did she have problems or concerns working with Mr. Merica, she answered: "none, none, whatsoever." When asked had she ever observed Mr. Merica mistreating, in any way, students, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever see him getting in the faces of any of his students, she answered: "None whatsoever." When asked if she had observed Mr. Merica screaming at his students, she answered: "No." When asked if she would have any problems working with Mr. Merica in the future, she answered: "I would work with him any day." Regarding Mr. Merica leaving his classroom, Ms. Wilson testified that: When Mr. Merica would leave the classroom, he has been called from the front office or any other classroom for computer. If the computer goes down, he was the man that they will find to fix the problem with the computer. That's the only time he would leave the classroom, when they request they need it. To the question other than his lunch time and his planning period, did you know of Mr. Merica just to get up from the classroom and go walk around, she answered: "Not at all." When asked did Mr. Merica socialize, she answer: "Not at all." When asked did she ever know of Mr. Merica to be unprofessional, belligerent, hostile or confrontational, she answered: "No." When asked did she ever observe Mr. Merica trying to subvert the administration, she answered: "No." When asked how his students reacted to Mr. Merica, Ms. Wilson replied: Oh, they were glad to see him every day. I mean, a lot of times they would be hungry before lunch, and Mr. Merica would go to Sam's that night before and have snacks in the classroom to make sure they have snacks to eat before they went to lunch. I mean, he was a wonderful teacher. Nobody could never ask of --and I mean, he was outnumbered as male teachers at the school. There was only two, you know, and I think he was a wonderful teacher. Presence Outside His Classroom When asked if she personally received calls for Mr. Merica to assist someone with their computers, Ms. Wilson answered: Yes. It comes over the intercom and he always asked, will you be okay for five or ten minutes? Let me see what's wrong with the computer and that's the only time he would leave the classroom. When asked if she knew "specifically" where Mr. Merica went on computer calls, Ms. Wilson answered: The school has changed a lot with teachers. A lot of the teachers has left. A lot of times he would go to like an autistic class which is down the hallway from us. He would go to the room next door to us to help with the computer. Now, with names I'm not familiar with the teachers because like I said, the school has changed a lot since I've been there and maybe those teachers are not even working there. He used to help Rita Airwood (ph.) a lot with the computer because she wasn't--she didn't know where the power button was. Most of the teachers there didn't know where the power was. A lot of us would, after school, when all the kids were gone, we would have him to teach how to work the computer and be on task when the next day come. So, therefore, a lot of the teachers would come to our classroom to let Neil show them were the computer--what screen you start on and all before the next day because a lot of times we would get worksheets. We didn't have workbooks. A lot of times we would get worksheets off the computer. So when I say names, it's a whole bunch of names I would have to go through. When asked, "[h]ow do you personally know, from viewing him going to that room--witness him go to where he said he was going?" Ms. Wilson answered: Because we have windows. The aisles run from east to west. We have -- and I'm looking out the door to make sure he gets to that classroom. A lot of times when he gets to that classroom, he'll either do this here, a thumbs up, and he's on his way back. According to Ms. Wilson, she always knew where Mr. Merica went when he left his class because he would tell her before leaving; i.e. "They want me in the front office." "I need to be here." He would not just walk out of the class. Though she did not follow him out the classroom, she testified: A lot of times I would be doing bathroom and he would say, "Hey, I'll be right back." He may go and get a cup of tea and he's right back there helping me in the bathroom, because normally I think we had -- at the time I worked with him, we maybe four to five wheelchairs, and a lot of times he would give me help with the boys, you know, and then I would do the young ladies. I would take the girls first and he would stand right outside the bathroom and wait with them if I said I needed him, he'll come inside and help me. Through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Wilson, Mr. Merica established those purposes for his frequent departures from his classroom; to assist other teachers with computer problems in their classrooms. Whether or not one agrees with the stated purposes Mr. Merica gave for being out of his classroom, that fact does not affirm the Commissioner’s allegation of unprofessional conduct by his frequent presence outside his classroom. When asked if he was called upon by the Administration to provide technical computer assistance to the teachers Mr. Merica replied: Very often. I would not fix a computer unless it was on my planning time, unless it was instructed by the administration office, by Ms. Pils or Mr. Drennan--Ms. Payne, I'm sorry--or Ms. Drennan--that they needed me and it was a real emergency and I would also make sure with my class that there was the kind of instruction that wasn't going to hurt me to be pulled out for a few minutes. Regarding ACT training and physical restraint of students, Mr. Merica admitted that he received ACT training and was certified only for the 1995 school year. He was aware of the policy requirement of annual ACT re-certification, but he elected not to be re-certified. Mr. Merica admitted physically restraining students on approximately three to five separate occasions during the period of 1995 to 1999. When questioned as to his understanding of physically restraining students when his ACT certification had expired, Mr. Merica responded: That is not my understanding. I think another ESE teacher touched upon it that if a person is about to harm themselves or others or harm you, where you really feel that they're going to physically harm themselves, another student or yourself, then you can restrain them because what you are trying to do is keep a dangerous situation from becoming more dangerous. Mr. Merica denied having classroom behavior problems during his tenure as a SLD resource teacher (1987-1988 through 1992-1993 school years) as well as during his tenure as a PI resource teacher. Mr. Merica admitted engaging in disruptive conduct when attending faculty and staff meetings. He characterized his disruptive actions as "tapping a pencil on the table or tapping his fingers on the table," but denied "pounding his shoe on the table." He matter-of-factly acknowledged making arguably argumentative comments when he agreed or disagreed with some things presented by the speaker with callous disregard that the speaker was speaking. I find that such callous disregard of rendering reasonable respect to the person speaking and those of his colleagues in attendance under the circumstances demonstrated unprofessional conduct by Mr. Merica. I further find Mr. Merica's ". . . constitutional right" justification for unprofessional conduct unconvincing. Mr. Merica acknowledged he has a loud voice and a strong personality, and he is sometimes loud, but not "always" loud as testified by co-workers. Mr. Merica testified that he got along and related very well to the PI and the SLD students in his classes, and he believed they related very well to him and none of his children came to him personally with a complaint. According to Mr. Merica, during his tenure at Foster, he never received a written document from a parent that said "we have a complaint." Mr. Merica opined that other than academic concerns-- normal academic concerns--when he asked for a conference with parents of his children, a few parents would come on conference nights because most of the parents of his kids knew him because he had been there for a while. Regarding Principal Griffin's decision to move him from his PI resource class to a regular SLD class, Mr. Merica recalled that before summer school of the 1998-1999 school year, Principal Griffin and he discussed the matter. His recollection of their discussion follows: She basically said --she looked at my record and said, "As far as discipline goes -- I know we have some other issues, but as far as discipline goes, you look like somebody who could handle that class because it's very difficult class with mostly boys and we'd like to see a man in there,"--and to be perfectly honest, I told her I just went through a divorce. I needed stability. I would prefer to stay in PI or I would like a transfer, and unfortunately at that time, the transfer period was over or they had a freeze. It was one or the other. I think they might have had budget problems and had a freeze at the time. It was one of the two reasons.--It's just that I needed that stability and I hadn't done -- I had done resource before, and I've done PI, which I felt really comfortable in, but hadn't done a full time SLD unit. Even though I was qualified to do it, I just didn't really feel comfortable going into another area after the domestic problems I was having at home. I went through a divorce, which was not an easy thing, during that summer. (emphasis supplied) Mr. Merica's recall of Principal Griffin's comment, "[w]e'd like to see a man in there," was corroborated by Ms. Lipari testimony that during the 1997-1998 school year she was moved down to teach kindergarten and first grade level PI students to provide "mothering and maternal type activities," and Mr. Merica was moved to third/fourth grade to teach older, larger male students. Mr. Merica gave the following reason for resigning as CTA representative in the spring of school year 1998-1999: I resigned because there was undue pressure from the principal [Principal Griffin] and they actually were putting some pressure on my child that was going to that school. Concerning his role as a resource teacher, Mr. Merica stated: As a resource teacher, I had to implement the IEP that was generated by either me or a teacher before me, describing the amount of pullout time, and pullout means that they were in a "regular education class" and they were pulled out for special services. What special services I generally gave them was either math or reading, but it could be social studies or science. Those were rare occasions. Most of them were math or reading. You pull them out for the amounted time specified by the IEP at the level that the IEP indicates, and when that period of time during the day is over, you send them back or you walk them back. In Hillsborough County they had some problems at that time with kids running off campus, so they recommended that we pick up our students and take them back to class. Administrative Leave and Observation of Model Class According to Mr. Merica, on or about August 12, 1999, he was assigned to the SLD class and his last day in that class was November 2, 1999, a total of 83 days before he was placed on administrative leave for five work days plus the weekend. Mr. Merica's assignment by Foster administration to Lake Magdalene was for him to observe a class at Lake Magdalene similar to his SLD class at Foster. After he sat in the Lake Magdalene class for approximately two hours, he spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office trying to compile materials that would work for his SLD class. Mr. Merica concluded that the Lake Magdalene (SLD) class was not similar (as a model) to his Foster (SLD) class based on following reasons: I was working in an inner city school, this was a very rich, affluent area with totally different set of behavior problems. The makeup of the class was totally different. There were more girls. They were more [sic] white. It was just a totally different makeup. They were younger. And I sat in the classroom for about two hours and then I spent the next few days sitting next to the principal's office supposedly trying to compile materials that would work for my class. Lock Down Drill and Student Running Out of Classroom Responding to questions raised about the "lockdown drill" situation when students were observed running from the classroom onto the PE field, Mr. Merica testified he was given a walkie-talkie because the school intercom system was down. He did not receive notification of the lockdown drill via the walkie-talkie, and so he was not made aware of the scheduled lockdown drill. The evidence is undisputed that students that were seen by his co-workers running "about" the facility during the lockdown drill were not under the supervision of Mr. Merica at that time. The evidence demonstrated those kids were in their scheduled PE class under the supervision of the PE teacher, who put them in "time-outs" and sent them to Mr. Merica for their "time-outs" periods. Undisputed evidence demonstrated and it is found as fact that during this "time-out" period that the incident of students kicking the ball and playing in the classroom and being generally unruly and disobedient that Mr. Merica had justifiable cause to defend himself when a student put his/her hands around his neck and attempted to choke him. His testimony regarding the conduct of students in his class was corroborated, in part, by the testimony of two students, Jarmaal Rumlin and Demetrie White. Mr. Merica denied yelling at either Principal Payne or Principal Griffin. In defense of his voice volume, he characterized his discussions as "forceful," "assertive," and sometimes with a "loud voice." He described pointing of his finger as [u]nder normal conversation when some people use their hands, they might consider that pointing, were I was just, you know, just using my normal gestures of speaking, as far as I was concerned, and if I was pointing, it was only --again, it was not to be pointing at anybody. It might be, that's point number 1; that's point number 2; that's point number 3. Continuing, Mr. Merica said he never lost his temper at school with either principal, was never "out of control" with any students under his supervision, and never injured a student under his supervision. Mr. Merica's explanations for his finger-pointing and verbal barrages during conversations with authority figures evidenced a defensive attitude that did not lend itself to the appearance of a professional team player. Principal Payne did not testify that Mr. Merica pointed his finger in her face during their many meetings over the years. Principal Griffin's testimony of "pointing his finger in her face by Mr. Merica" was not accompanied by specific circumstances and situational context of the incidents. Accordingly, the appropriateness of such conduct, without evidence of each party's participation in the conversation and the specific circumstances and situational context at the time of occurrence, was not shown by the evidence of record to be, clearly and convincingly, inappropriate. Answering allegations of making derogatory or disrespectful remarks about Principal Payne or Principal Griffin, Mr. Merica replied: That's the eye of the beholder, but as far as I was concerned, I was just trying to make them a better person and there were some things that they were criticizing me about. I criticize people for things that I feel they have weaknesses too. So, you know, it's the eye of the beholder. Responding to Offered Assistance and Suggestions When asked if he had received assistance to help improve his classroom management techniques with regard to his regular SLD class, Mr. Merica replied: Yes. I always took suggestions and implemented every suggestion. Some things did work and some things did not work. You know, sometimes certain personalities -- certain things won't work and certain things will, but I certainly implemented every plan. Now, hey, I can even say this: some plans that I wasn't that good at and probably somebody else could have made it work -- maybe. But I know that some things I did that they implemented -- some things worked and some things didn't and I can even go further without trying to be editorializing that we learn from others. Some of the other teachers have suggestions --not just the ones from administration. There were some teachers that came up with some plans that worked for me. Mr. Merica's above recollection of receptivity and implementation of constructive assistance was confirmed through the undisputed testimony of Ms. Hindman, who on three separate occasions documented specific improvements she observed in Mr. Merica's classroom on each of her return visits. Use of Computer, Games, and Newspaper as Teaching Aids Answering those allegations regarding his use of video and computer games as teaching tools, Mr. Merica's undisputed response was: I said I never played them [video games] during instructional time. Students played them sometimes and it was part of the IEP. There were various video games. There was many of them and one they talked about a lot was the golf. But, you see, these kids have kinesthetic problems and we're trying to teach them how to manipulate the mouse, keyboards and other things. There was a racecar game that they used to use, plus it was good for their eye-hand coordination because they were kinesthetically challenged kids. They were in IEP. It was in the IEP that they were supposed to be kinesthetically challenged to whatever level they were to try to take them another year's worth. They didn't even call it grade level, but another year's worth of progress. They were approved, by the way. As far as I know, every game that I brought was approved by the school board or if it was not, nobody told me it was not. There was a list of computer software that you could use for kinesthetic(s), but the list was not always complete. There was also ones for learning and some of the software I even created myself and I made sure it was approved by the office before I even used it because I created it. I wrote it and I wanted to make sure that it was okay with them. But they were very, very, academic. Mine dealt more with reading and -- it never had any kinesthetic(s) in it at all. So mine was easy to approve. ---I knew the list, but again the list -- it even says it does not include all the new software. It does not include all the new software. There are ones that we know about. And the same thing with video list. They had a video list. They have a video list, but it also said under these circumstances, these are -- generally a "G" movie is approved, but you know -- the list was always being compiled. It was always new it always had a little thing in there like, we may be incomplete, check with your principal. Answering the question, "[w]hat is kinesthetic?" Mr. Merica stated: Kinesthetic is using hand-eye coordination. They are physically impaired kids. Some of them were trying -- they might even some kind of physical deformity or nerve damage or cerebral palsy and they were trying to get them to manipulate their hands. Mr. Merica's selections of newspapers, computer games, and specific TV programs as associative resource educational tools for his students were undeniably appropriate resource materials and activities related to learning goals for his students with various learning and physical disabilities. No witness for the Commissioner, including Principal Griffin, the ART, and the ESE specialists, testified to the contrary. Mr. Merica denied that he had sexually harassed his co-workers, and his denials were confirmed by the testimonies of the alleged victims who were called to testify by the Commissioner. He denied "being off task when in the classroom." He denied playing video games in class during teaching and instruction time. Mr. Merica's denials of essential elements in the Amended Administrative complaint, even if unbelievable, does not prove the accusations. The burden remains with the Commissioner. Answering the allegation of "reading the newspaper in class," Mr. Merica stated: If there was a current event and we were talking about current events or -- the kids even had papers at that time, so we have used the paper in an educational way in the school before. Answering the allegation of allowing his class to watch the television program, The Price is Right, Mr. Merica stated: That's a possibility, because at one time in PI, our kids were not going to the lunchroom. They were served lunch in the room. Well, that was a time where I was not present. It was the aides on attendance. It was their duty. That was my time. I have a duty-free lunch is what they call it. It's part of the contract. I didn't always take that time. They knew if they needed help, I would help. If there was some special function going on or something like that, I would not necessarily go to lunch. But as a general rule I did do lunch, and those kids were in the room and sometimes the TV was on and the news during lunch period. It was lunch period for the children, too. Mr. Merica added that he was not aware of any prohibition against putting the TV on during the children's lunch period. Answering his attorney's question why he placed a "Do you need a Sub?" note (the Board's Exhibit 62) in some but not all his co-workers mailboxes, Mr. Merica stated: That's self-explanatory. It says: "Do you need a sub? If so please call Mr. Merica at 985-0203. Do not call before 6:00 a.m., or, you will have to deal with me personally. Can you spell DEAD?" I put it in a few teachers' mailboxes--friends mainly--I'm not a sub. People know that. The people that I gave this to know that I was not a sub. It's obviously a joke. The joke means that I don't think its appropriate to call anybody before 6:00 a.m. in the morning, you know, to disturb their family.--- As far as I know, they wanted to have a new policy because the secretaries didn't want to have to deal with sub calls anymore. So they said to start calling the subs before 6:00 o'clock in the morning to make sure they get there, and by the way, it doesn't say--can you spell dead? That's a little inside pedagogy, whatever you want to call it. It's a little inside teaching joke. "I hope you can spell." Based on the situations and circumstances at the time he engaged in activities and conduct in findings 206 through 211 and findings 229 through 234, I find Mr. Merica's explanations were plausible, reasonable, and within a teacher's authority and obligation to be creative and innovative by providing one or more methods of training to attain specific individual educational goals, based upon the physical and/or mental limitations of students and in concert with the educational goals as stated in their respective IEPs. Realizing that Foster administration and the Board were in the process of terminating his employment contract at the next Board meeting, Mr. Merica wrote a November 2, 1999, memorandum to Dr. Binnie and Principal Griffin, suggesting that he be transferred (to another school) as an alternative solution. The request of transfer was denied. By letter of January 13, 2000, Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent, the Board, suspended Mr. Merica with pay until the Board meeting on January 18, 2000, at which point his contractual employment with the School Board was terminated. The School Board's annual renewal of Mr. Merica's yearly contract of employment during Principal Payne's tenure as principal of Foster provides a reasonable inference, and I so infer, that the 2000 termination of Mr. Merica's annual contractual employment was based primarily upon issues that were identified and raised by Principal Griffin during the mid-1998 through 2000 period when she, and not Ms. Payne, was principal at Foster. There is no evidence of record that Foster brought to the attention of the Board or that the Board considered allegations of or findings of professional misconduct that had occurred during the 1994 through 1998 time period when Ms. Payne was principal at Foster Elementary. Amended Administrative Complaint Material Allegations Paragraph 3(a) The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica, at unspecified times, demonstrated heightened anger while conferencing with Principal Payne. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that between 1998 and 1999,8 Mr. Merica yelled at Principal Griffin while conferencing with her as alleged in Paragraph 3(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. I do not find that Mr. Merica "pointed his finger in his principal's face and being emotionally out of control while conferencing with Principal Griffin." The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica failed or refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Payne during her tenure as principal at Foster during the period of 1994 through mid 1998 or that Mr. Merica refused to comply with specific requests or specific instructions given by Principal Griffin during her tenure from mid-1998 through 1999, as alleged in paragraph 3(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica made derogatory and/or disrespectful remarks specifically about Principal Payne or specifically about Principal Griffin to and in the presence of his co-workers as alleged in paragraph 3(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 4 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica rejected constructive criticism and assistance from those whose positions required giving such constructive criticism and assistance as alleged in paragraph 4(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the reliable evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, specifically in the mid and latter part of the 1999 calendar year, Mr. Merica accepted and responded positively to constructive criticism and offers of assistance from those whose position required giving such constructive criticism and assistance. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that on unspecified dates between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by speaking aloud; speaking to co-workers, sometimes argumentatively; and interrupting speakers when they were speaking during faculty meetings as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica was disruptive at faculty meetings by banging on tables and by making subversive and derogatory statements about the administration, in the presence of students and parent and faculty as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 5 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, during February 1999 as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica sexually harassed a co-worker, Ms. Kolinsky, an intern and teacher at Foster as alleged in paragraph 5(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica sexually harassed co-worker, K.R., a teacher at Foster Elementary as alleged in paragraph 5(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 6 The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica frequently left his class with his aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students as alleged in paragraph 6(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material evidence proved on those occasions, recalled by Mr. Merica and his DEES attendant who was an on-scene observer, that his absences from his classroom were for legitimate purposes within his obligations as a professional teacher in the Hillsborough County school system. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica's use of alternative methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment to teach his students were "ineffective teaching tools and student management" as alleged in paragraph 6(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence proved that Mr. Merica's use of other supportive, available, and permissible means and methods such as video games, newspapers, and other tools and equipment for stimulating his PI students' interest were effective teaching tools. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, the factual basis to support allegations that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica (1) utilized ineffective lesson plans, (2) utilized ineffective behavioral management plans, (3) failed to keep students academically engaged, and (4) failed to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class as alleged in paragraph 6(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7 The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999 Mr. Merica restrained students without the required ACT certification as alleged in paragraph 7(a) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence proved that Mr. Merica restrained "unruly" students and restrained "a student" in defense of his personal safety and that of other students in the time-out class incident herein found. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica yelled in the faces of students as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Through the testimony of two students, Demetrie White and Jarmaal Rumlin, it is clear when Mr. Merica was yelling in their face(s) it was, in part, to be heard over their yelling at him and/or each other when they were kicking the ball and playing during time-out. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica exhibited out-of-control or emotional forms of discipline as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(b) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The material and relevant evidence proved that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained one unruly large male ESE student that was not enrolled in his class without a request from the teacher who was responsible for the class, as alleged, in part, in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 7(d) was withdrawn by the Commissioner. The material and relevant evidence failed to prove, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica's teaching and student behavior management was ineffective, including: frequently leaving his class with aides so that he could walk around campus, socialize, and/or monitor other teachers and their students. when in his class, frequently playing video games on his computer, reading a newspaper, or reviewing architectural designs. utilizing ineffective lesson plans and behavioral management plans, failing to keep students academically engaged, and failing to control his students and/or gain their respect as the manager of the class. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, within the circumstances and context of each encounter of record, Mr. Merica restrained unruly students without the required ACT certification. The evidence demonstrated that in each proven encounter of unruly student restraint, Mr. Merica acted to protect the unruly student, other classmates, and, on two occasions, protect himself and another colleague. The material and relevant evidence proved, clearly and convincingly, that between 1994 and 1999, Mr. Merica restrained an unruly male student who was not enrolled in his class without waiting for the female teacher to ask for such assistance as alleged in paragraph 7(c) of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The evidence demonstrated and it is found that by restraining the unruly male student, Mr. Merica prevented possible potential injury to the unruly student, to the female teacher, to the grandmother volunteer, and to other students of both classes who were present in the hallway at the time of the incident. Paragraph 7(d), alleging inappropriate discipline of several students on or about September 23, 1999, was withdrawn by Petitioner. Paragraph 8 The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, allegations in paragraph 8 of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent met with his principal and county employees to discuss and received letters of reprimand for each act alleged in paragraphs 1 through 7 of the Amended Administrative Compliant. Paragraph 9 The Commissioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Board terminated Respondent's contractual employment as a teacher with Hillsborough County in 2000. The burden of proof required to terminate a contract of employment is not the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof standard required to revoke a license. The Commissioner offered no documented proof, however, proving the Board's decision was based specifically on the allegations found in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. There is no documented evidence of record that identifies the specific basis upon which the ultimate determination to terminate Mr. Merica's 2000 school year employment contract was made by the Board. The Commissioner did not prove, clearly and convincingly, by material and relevant evidence of record, the allegations that "[E]ffective September 22, 2000, the school board terminated Respondent's employment on charges on [sic] insubordination, persistent violation or willful refusal to obey laws or policies relating to the public schools, and failure to demonstrate competency relating to the instruction, evaluation and management of students in accordance with accepted standards," as alleged in paragraph 9 of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order finding Respondent, Neil Merica, in violation of Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), and imposing the following penalties: Suspend Respondent's right of renewal of his teacher certificate and place Respondent on probation for a period of three years, to require successful completion of an anger management course and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify upon re-application under existing requirements for certification by the State Board at the time the suspension expires. Impose a fine on Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 for violation of Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), to be paid prior to or at the time of re-application for certification, and other such conditions as the Commissioner may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 31st day of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 1091499, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Exceptional Student Education, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is valid through June 30, 2016. The Commissioner of Education is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding a Florida Educator's Certificate. Respondent is an experienced teacher, having taught for 22 years, the last ten in Florida. Respondent has a post- bachelor's degree in Special Education, and a second bachelor's degree in English, and a master's degree in Special Education. Respondent began his career teaching emotional behavioral students, and did that for a few years. He later worked at a residential school, then transferred to teaching those with intellectual disabilities, and later focused his time and professional efforts on autistic students. Respondent decided to teach Special Education students because he had himself been a Special Education student. The incidents complained of in the Amended Administrative Complaint are alleged to have taken place over a three-month period at Olympic Heights High School in Boca Raton, Florida, where Respondent was employed as the emotional behavioral teacher and provided math support. Respondent testified that students with emotional behavioral disorders that interfere with their learning, need a support system to help them learn how to better handle their emotional and behavioral states in order to learn. His job was to oversee that system and to direct a classroom where he could teach them those skills. In addition to his special needs classes, Respondent would "push into" math classes, to teach Special Education students that were in the general education community. In this case, Petitioner outlined several rule and statutory violations by Respondent in its Amended Administrative Complaint including: Violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct. Failing to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Unreasonably restraining a student from independent action in pursuit of learning. Intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The factual allegations underlying these violations were as follows: During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent improperly and aggressively handled T.C., an eighteen year old, male student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADF). On or about January 27, 2015, when T.C. grabbed Respondent's coffee cup, Respondent improperly restrained T.C. by placing T.C. in a headlock. On three (3) other occasions during the 2014/2015 school year, Respondent pulled T.C. to the floor, squeezed his cheeks and yelled at him. Respondent would often put his hands on a student when unnecessary and yell at them calling them names. Further, in November of 2014, the Respondent left a student, P.M., unattended in the classroom for twenty (20) minutes while he used the bathroom facilities. Facts Regarding Aggressive Handling and Improper Restraint of T.C. Nicole Ben-Hamo was a speech pathologist doing contract work for the Palm Beach County School District at Olympic Heights High School, in Boca Raton, Florida. She testified that on January 15, 2015, she observed an incident between Respondent and T.C., a student. The incident occurred in what she described as "an amazing small classroom" (referring to its physical size). The classroom was full of other staff members who were in a position, she felt, to observe what she observed. Ben-Hamo saw what she described as "a little wrestle," when student T.C. "grabbed" Respondent's coffee cup. T.C. was tall, heavy, and a big guy. She observed Respondent move forward from behind T.C. to try to reclaim his coffee cup. She claimed that Respondent was standing up behind T.C. and both had their feet on the floor. Respondent reached over the shoulder of T.C. and around him as he tried to take back the coffee cup. Ben-Hamo later wrote a statement in which she claimed that Respondent's arm was around T.C. in a "headlock." Pet. Ex. 2. In her hearing testimony, she described the action as Respondent reaching with one hand to reach the coffee cup, and reaching around T.C. to restrain him with the other hand. In her prior deposition testimony, she noted that it was probably not the right terminology to say a "headlock," but said that Respondent was holding the student's head in a restraint while reaching for the cup. She conceded that she was not familiar with wrestling moves or any kind of move that would be called a "headlock." She testified that she does not know if that is what the move is called, or if it was intended to be a headlock.1/ Ben-Hamo tried to clarify that what she actually observed was Respondent's arm extending from T.C.'s clavicle to his neck area. She could not tell if Respondent was squeezing T.C. In both her deposition testimony and at the hearing, she indicated that she could not imagine that he was squeezing or trying to hurt T.C. In her written statement, given a day or so after the event, Ben-Hamo wrote that she did not believe that Respondent's actions constituted intentional abuse. Pet. Ex. 2. In an effort to further clarify what she thought she saw, Ben-Hamo explained that she did not think that she had witnessed intentional abuse. She felt that Respondent was trying to get the coffee cup back and calm the student.2/ Pet. Ex. 2. Ben-Hamo testified that the entire incident took a "short time" and that none of the other adults who were present intervened. Because she felt that the incident was not "proper interaction," she reported it to an assistant principal. Sarah Borah, the assistant principal; Sharon Dix-Stark, the ESE coordinator; and David Clark, the principal, all were called to testify by Petitioner.3/ Mary Beth Hall, who was present in the room, reported that Respondent sat next to T.C., as he often did. This was done to keep T.C. from jumping up to be disruptive or grab the food of others. While they were seated, she saw T.C. grab Respondent's coffee cup off the table. In turn, Respondent took T.C.'s hat, telling T.C. that "if you take something of mine; I'll take something of yours." Hall reported that nothing she saw about the interaction was extraordinary. She felt that by the time an investigator was called in "things had been kind of blown out of proportion" and the incident between T.C. and Respondent was more a matter of "perception." She felt Respondent worked well with the students. He was more "hands on" with T.C., with whom he got along well. Respondent served as a needed male role model to T.C. Hall recalled that Respondent and T.C. remained seated throughout the incident. Contrary to the testimony of Ben-Hamo, Hall never saw T.C. or Respondent stand during the incident. Hall gave a statement months later in which she used the term "chokehold." Pet. Ex. 3. However, she unequivocally explained at the hearing that she did not see Respondent actually choking T.C., using a chokehold on T.C., or restraining T.C. Hall testified, instead, that the two were "wrestling with their arms" over the items (the cup and hat) and reaching over and around each other, as would two children tussling for the same toy. They both remained seated during the incident and their respective desks never moved or were jostled out of position. Respondent never stood behind T.C. during the incident. According to Hall, the entire incident was two people sitting next to each other and wrestling with their arms. She used the term "wrestling" to indicate two people reaching around each other. Hall testified that she saw Respondent's actions as a means for him to teach T.C. not to grab something that did not belong to him and belonged to someone else. After what she described as a very quick incident, Hall reflected that Respondent got his coffee mug, T.C. got his hat back, and they both seemed happy after the incident concluded. Hall did not find it necessary to intervene in the incident, as there was no violence between Respondent and T.C. Hall observed several paraprofessionals in the room. None intervened, or put down their cell phones during the incident. According to Hall, T.C. was not harmed in any way. Hall testified that no noises or sounds were made by T.C. during the incident that indicated he was in any pain, distress, or discomfort. Hall never saw Respondent mistreat T.C. in any way. Respondent appeared to treat all children respectfully and attentively, and she never saw him use his hands improperly on any student in the classroom. Respondent testified on his own behalf. He felt he had a "wonderful" relationship with T.C. He described T.C. as a physically 18-year-old adult, who was large and strong. However, his emotional development was at the pre-kindergarten level. T.C. was over six feet tall, and weighed 250 to 260 pounds. T.C. was obsessive compulsive and had a short attention span. He had certain behavioral problems, which were accentuated because he never learned proper replacement behaviors for his maladaptive kindergarten behaviors. These behaviors were not appropriate for an 18-year-old. T.C. always needed to be escorted because he liked to run, look, investigate, and discover. Whether it was in front of a car or whether it was a trash can, he just always wanted to do things. For safety reasons, an adult was always required to be with him. Assistance was provided to help steer T.C. to more appropriate behavior and activities. Occasionally, T.C. would put Respondent's hand on his shoulder for Respondent to rub his shoulder. It was a method that Respondent used to soothe T.C., which they called "tickles." On the day of the incident, Respondent sat down next to T.C., who had finished lunch. Respondent placed his coffee cup on the dining table some three feet away. Without warning, T.C. lunged across Respondent to grab Respondent's coffee cup. He did not reach it the first time. Respondent began massaging T.C.'s arm and said, "Do you want tickles, or do you want the coffee cup?" T.C. calmed for a time, and then reached for the cup again. T.C. reached and got his hand on Respondent's cup. While doing this, he was leaning into or on Respondent's lap. He eventually reached and grabbed Respondent's cup. Respondent took T.C.'s hat from the windowsill, and asked if T.C. wanted his hat given back. T.C. reached for his hat with his other hand. As the incident unfolded, T.C. held the cup and reached over Respondent trying to grab his hat back from Respondent. The two were right next to each other, reaching back and forth. Respondent extended his hand out, so that T.C. would see that he was waiting for his cup to be exchanged. Eventually T.C. got bored of the cup and gave it back to Respondent. When T.C. gave Respondent the cup, Respondent gave him back his hat. The more persuasive and credible testimony regarding the classroom incident was that T.C. impulsively grabbed Respondent's cup while they were seated next to each other. Respondent then attempted to make a teaching point with T.C. about not taking the things of another, by taking his hat. In the process, T.C. and Respondent reached over and around the other in an effort to retrieve their item from the other. There was physical contact between the two, but it was not inappropriate, or unduly rough.4/ There was no credible proof that Respondent intended to harm, restrain, or injure T.C. Ben-Hamo's testimony and conclusions regarding the extent, type and nature of the contact and interaction between T.C. and Respondent is rejected as unpersuasive and implausible.5/ The undersigned finds that Respondent did not place or restrain T.C. in a "chokehold," "headlock," or other improper restraint. Based on this record and the circumstances, there was no clear and convincing evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule in the incident with T.C. regarding the coffee cup. Allegations Reported by Shannon Lewis Shannon Lewis, a paraprofessional, testified by deposition. Pet. Ex. 11. She described T.C. as being 6'5" tall and weighing 250 to 280 pounds. She noted that he had very little impulse control, and that when he saw something of interest, he impulsively went to get it. Lewis testified that one day when Respondent took T.C. to physical education class, T.C. wanted to put his tooth on the doorway when he exited the gymnasium.6/ According to Lewis, Respondent grabbed T.C. by one arm, then pulled him away and yanked him. She testified that Respondent put his foot behind T.C.'s foot, so that T.C. would have to go to the ground. According to Lewis, Respondent did that three times before he would relent.7/ Lewis testified that the students in the physical education class and two paraprofessionals, including Pedro St. Jacques and Illiana Girtman, were present when the incident occurred and saw it. She testified that St. Jacques was the aide assigned to T.C. Lewis testified that while T.C. was on the ground, Respondent squeezed his face and made his lips pucker and yelled, "No, T. No." No student or other teacher testified that they saw or witnessed the actions described by Lewis. St. Jacques executed an affidavit admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3.8/ Resp. Ex. 3. However, he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including T.C. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent throw T.C. to the ground and never saw him treat T.C. badly.9/ St. Jacques testified that sometimes it was necessary to approach T.C. in a different manner because of his size and to prevent him from getting hurt. It was sometimes necessary to physically guide T.C. away from whatever activity he became fixated on. St. Jacques never observed Respondent use any unnecessary or questionable force on T.C. in those instances. He knew that Respondent was working with T.C. to have him stop biting the door frames as he walked through the halls. He heard Respondent tell T.C. not to bite them and saw him maneuver T.C. away from them. No undue force was used by Respondent. Girtman was also present during this incident, according to Lewis. She was a paraprofessional with Respondent at Olympic Heights High School. She never saw Respondent touch a student in a way that she thought was unnecessary or improper. Respondent was always gentle with T.C. She never saw Respondent squeeze T.C.'s face or yell at him. Another paraprofessional, Alvaro Rodriguez testified. He was also identified by Lewis as being present during the door- biting incident. He never saw Respondent use physical methods or force on T.C. in a way that he thought was improper. He never saw Respondent pull T.C. down to the floor. He never saw Respondent squeeze T.C. by the cheeks or yell at him. Respondent denied that the hallway incident occurred, as described by Lewis. He testified that the banging of T.C.'s teeth on a piece of metal was part of his obsessive-compulsive disorder.10/ Respondent was not big enough to pull T.C. down to the floor, and never did so. When T.C. was agitated or running around, Respondent would ask him to sit, but he never pulled him to the floor. Respondent explained that sometimes T.C. needed gentle pressure on his arm or something to reinforce what it means to go down or to go in one direction or the other. Respondent denied that he yelled into T.C.'s face or yelled at him, and that T.C. did not respond to yelling, he only responded to quiet talking. Respondent testified that he never grabbed T.C. by the cheeks and squeezed. Respondent's testimony concerning this incident, and the testimony from St. Jacques, Girtman, and Rodriquez was more persuasive and credible. There simply was no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent improperly, violently, or forcefully threw or took T.C. to the ground, yelled at him, squeezed his cheeks or handled him in an inappropriate way. Further, the proof was insufficient to prove any unreasonable restraint was used by Respondent during this incident with T.C. Incident Involving P.M. Lewis described P.M. as a non-verbal and out of control student, who destroyed his home and wiped feces everywhere. Lewis claimed that Respondent decided to work with P.M. in his classroom one-on-one during lunch.11/ One day Lewis walked into Respondent's classroom and saw P.M. sitting on a yoga ball with no teacher in sight.12/ She then heard the toilet flush, and Respondent walked out of the bathroom. The aides were instructed that no student should ever be left alone. St. Jacques' statement indicates he (St. Jacques) was always assigned to supervise P.M. when Respondent was at the school, and that he (St. Jacques) was supposed to be with P.M. on the day in question. Apparently, P.M. was another student who needed full-time supervision. Evidently, P.M. liked to walk around the classrooms and would walk into Respondent's classroom on occasion. St. Jacques would always redirect him. When P.M. wandered into Respondent's classroom, it would only be for about 30 seconds. There was never a time that Respondent was responsible to supervise P.M. during his planning period, or at any other time. It was always the responsibility of the paraprofessional to supervise and attend to P.M. Even if Respondent was working with P.M., St. Jacques was responsible to be with him. Respondent testified, consistent with St. Jacques, that he never worked with P.M. without the aide present. He was never assigned to supervise P.M. in lieu of the aide, because that would have changed P.M.'s Individualized Education Program. Students were not allowed in Respondent's classroom during his planning period, except to be escorted to use the bathroom. Respondent testified that there were times that he would transition back from a class and P.M. would be in his room using his sensory equipment, but he would always be with St. Jacques. One time when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period, he observed P.M. in his room with Lewis, who sometimes covered for St. Jacques during the other paraprofessional's break. During the period of time that Respondent was in the bathroom, he was not assigned or supposed to be supervising P.M. He was surprised to see P.M. when he came out of the bathroom during his planning period. The allegation that Respondent failed to properly supervise P.M. and left him alone while Respondent used the bathroom was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The more persuasive evidence at the hearing indicated that Respondent was not assigned to supervise P.M. at the time of this particular incident. The testimony of St. Jacques supports Respondent's version and this finding. Whatever Lewis saw, or thought she saw, was not persuasive or sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent left P.M. unattended in his classroom for 20 minutes or failed to supervise a student assigned to him. Exposing a Student to Unnecessary Embarrassment or Disparagement Lewis further testified that there was an incident involving students who wanted to use calculators during math class. J.M. wanted to use the calculator, but Respondent would not let her use it. The student had to be taken from the room because she screamed and carried on when not permitted to use the calculator. Apparently, Respondent wanted her to learn to do math without a calculator. There were two other students who Respondent also did not allow to use the calculator. In response to the various requests, Respondent commented, "This is ridiculous. You guys are stupid if you can't do this without a calculator. You need to have life skills in order for you to be successful outside of the classroom." There was not a shred of proof offered or adduced at the hearing that Respondent "put his hands on" any of these students.13/ Furthermore, there was no clear and convincing proof that Respondent intended to expose these math students to unnecessary embarrassment. See Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Respondent denied that he ever called any of the students a derogatory name or called any of them "stupid." Lewis agreed that it was Respondent's role as the teacher to determine whether a calculator was used. She claimed that St. Jacques was in the room when Respondent called the girls stupid and heard him say it. St. Jacques' attested in his written statement in a contrary manner. Resp. Ex. 3. He said that he never witnessed anything inappropriate between Respondent and any students, including the girls involved in the calculator incident, J.M. and Rebecca. St. Jacques never witnessed Respondent mistreat the math students referred to by Lewis. Respondent was always respectful to the students and he never saw Respondent embarrass or ridicule any of them. Respondent testified that he treated the students in general with compassion and respect. He denied he ever called them names other than their own and never embarrassed any student or called them names because they wanted to use the calculators. Based upon the more persuasive and credible evidence adduced at the hearing, the allegations of belittling the math students and calling them "stupid" were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. There was insufficient proof to establish that Respondent intended to unnecessarily ridicule, demean, or belittle any particular student The testimony of St. Jacques bolsters Respondent's testimony on this point. The undersigned credits Respondent's testimony and finds it more persuasive. The undersigned finds that there was no clear or convincing evidence to conclude that Respondent's actions or statements to the girls regarding the use of the calculator, constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Jeffrey Voner. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2018.
